Can someone explain in non-legal way why the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask or not but not whether they can have a medical procedure or not? What's the main difference between these two?
Similar issues exist about masks too. (e.g. concerns of immunocompromised people)
There is no "right not to mask". A right not to mask would mean that such a law would not be enforceable. But the court found no such right. It simply found that the executive was interpreting a statute incorrectly.
Specifically, the Biden administration believed that a piece of legislation gave them the authority to mandate masks in certain workplaces. The court disagreed except for in the case of medical facilities. In particular, the court said nothing about what would happen if, hypothetically, Congress were to pass a law clarifying that OSHA does indeed have the authority to mandate masking.
The SCOTUS decisions regarding masking/vaccines were not cases of constitutional law or individual rights. Rather, SCOTUS was simply ruling on the meaning of a statute passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive. Individual constitutional rights were not in play.
By contrast, Roe v Wade establishes a constitutional right to abortion. What this means is that even if Congress or a state passed a law outlawing abortion, that law would not be enforceable unless SCOTUS overturned Roe.
I don't think there is a single justice on the court who believes that the constitution provides a right not to mask. The court is hopelessly political, and on hot-button issues it's best to think about the court reasoning backward from decisions rather than forward for law, but "a constitutional right not to mask" is not how the conservative justices currently on the court would ever go about justifying striking down a mask policy.
Comparing the mask/vaccine decisions to the Roe decision doesn't make much sense.
> They ruled that the government doesn't have the right to force people to wear masks.
Both of these statements are super false.
The court ruled that one particular piece of legislation does not give the executive branch the authority to force certain employers to have and enforce a rule that their employees, while in the workplace, must be masked or vaccinated.
There is NO "individual right to not mask" involved here. It's a ruling about the authority of the executive branch given the contents of a law passed by the legislature. That's all.
In particular,
1. The businesses effected by the ruling are of course free to none-the-less mandate masking without a federal mandate. I.e., there is no right for individuals not to mask.
2. If Congress were to pass a new law explicitly giving OSHA authority to mandate masks in workplaces, the court's reasoning in Nat'l Federation of Businesses v. DoL would be wholly irrelevant to that new piece of legislation.
3. Mask mandates in non-OSHA contexts -- eg federal buildings -- are not effected by either scotus ruling.
4. Biden v Missouri, decided by the same court at the same time, left vaccine mandates in place for healthcare facilities.
Neither of the SCOTUS decisions have anything to do with masking as an individual right, and they certainly don't rule that "government doesn't have the right to force people to wear masks". All they say is that one particular law, as written, doesn't give the Executive the authority to mandate that employers mandate masks/vaccines in certain workplaces.
If the court had found a reading of the constitution that enshrined a right not to mask that somehow didn't create a penumbra within which many other individual rights (including abortion) lived, that would be... a rather incredible exercise in bullshitting. But that's not what happened.
Regardless, other comments here are accurate: at least on certain issues the supreme court is hopelessly politicized.
The justification is basically immaterial given that any judicial philosophy effectively defines its own axioms.
They have not said if states can impose such restrictions, nor if large companies can decide for themselves if they want to have such restrictions, and I am unsure under what paragraph the distinction between health care worker and worker of a large businesses is defined. It is possible that health care workers are defined as a "critical role" or something that allows for additional restrictions.
To be honest I believe part of the problem is self-inflicted. Many conservatives had already made their peace with the issue and some media personalities unnecessarily picked up the topic and some people made a fool of themselves in a way so that the opposition only needed to show around their behavior to garner more supporters against abortion. It is probably naive to believe that the argument is about ethics instead of partisanship at this point.
I am for legal abortions and against mandatory masking (most of the time, there are situations where wearing a mask is just sensible), but I don't see these topics intersecting very much. Abortions will happen if they are legal or not. To minimize suffering a legal and medical responsible way is required.
But it is still an ethical question to allow it or not and intrinsic to almost all ethical considerations is that there is no clear right or wrong so I don't see a solution if either a vast majority supports it or not or opposing political factions collaborate on the issue.
but if you asked them when the abortion was possible they wouldn't even understand the question, while people understand what wearing or not wearing a mask means, usually!
The baby is not a citizen, meaning they haven't the same rights of adult people because they also have much less responsibilities, given their status.
It's completely obvious, I don't ask my cats if they want to get vaccinated, I just do it, because they have no way to decide on the matter.
A fetus is not different.
US law protects the lives of non-citizens as well, not sure how that is relevant. And their argument would be what is the difference between a 38 week old fetus and 2 day old baby? What magical occurrence happens in the birth canal that transforms it from non-human to human? Obviously, science is on their side. So then the courts have to decide where do you draw the line? 8 weeks? 38 weeks? That isn't covered by the Constitution, so leaving it up to the states (or Congress) is the correct decision.