I don’t have a subscription to the NY Times, so I don’t know if this issue was presented in the case discussed in the article you linked, but I am curious about the “progressive” response — if women (sorry, I forgot my audience; “birthing people”) have a right to privacy sufficient to override the state’s interest in protecting the pre-viable life growing inside of them, presumably that right includes the right to refuse a government mandated COVID-19 vaccine? After all, the positive infringement on bodily integrity of being required to have a foreign substance injected into your body is arguably of a different order than the negative infringement of not being permitted to remove something from your body that is naturally there, not to mention the fact that the state’s interest is greater in the case of abortion considering mandated COVID-19 vaccination likely won’t lead to herd immunity given quickly waning protection and the frequency of variants. Obviously, the immediate burden of the restriction on liberty is greater for the birthing people, but, unlike the burdens associated with government mandated vaccination, those burdens were a known consequence of voluntarily engaging in the activity that produced them, and, in any event, considering we don’t know the long-term effects of mRNA technology, can we really even evaluate the overall disparity in burdens?
Anyway, I assume the “progressive” response is in favor of keeping your laws off my body, but maybe I’m missing something.