Our right to freedom from contagious, vaccine-preventable disease is greater than their right to freedom from vaccines. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) says as much. - ThreadSky

elizabethjacobs.bsky.social • 2 days ago

Our right to freedom from contagious, vaccine-preventable disease is greater than their right to freedom from vaccines.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) says as much.

Comments

wndlb.bsky.social•2 days ago

The likelihood that that precedent would be upheld by *this* Court? Negligible.
(Some of the votes on COVID cases on the shadow docket provided effective test runs; this Court favors the rugged individual over any ‘common good.’

elizabethjacobs.bsky.social•2 days ago

I don’t know. I vaguely recall a few decisions that seemed to uphold vaccine requirements, depending on the situation. However, as you say, one cannot tell with this group.

banallbans.bsky.social•2 days ago

You claim a right to freedom from diseases that never infect 100% of a population… meaning it is possible you wouldn’t ever be infected.

A person forced to take a vaccine does not have any possibility of not being vaccinated.

Beware.

There may come a vaccine you distrust.

#Mandates are #bans.

ihavenooats.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yeah, the idea that vaccines = common good is dependent on the integrity of the research, as well as regulators doing their jobs to ensure that the vaccines are safe. Given the incompetency of this admin I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of quack vaccine-equivalent from RFK Jr. and co gets pushed

ihavenooats.bsky.social•2 days ago

Worth noting however that one may legally choose not to take a certain vaccine, but others may also legally choose to protect themselves by denying you various services

eilrach.bsky.social•2 days ago

If they pull an approved vaccine, we can challenge the rule change as arbitrary and capricious.

timonvanhaeften.bsky.social•2 days ago

It may depend on the potential severity of that particular disease; in the past countries have indeed decided for obligatory vaccination against smallpox (the only disease that has been globally eradicated thanks to vaccination)

lexie1179.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yes. The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few or the one.

bike2beer.bsky.social•2 days ago

Vaccines have allowed a lot of people to forget how bad preventable diseases can be.

ihavenooats.bsky.social•2 days ago

Also Reynolds v. United States (1878)

ihavenooats.bsky.social•2 days ago

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

ihavenooats.bsky.social•2 days ago

Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?

ihavenooats.bsky.social•2 days ago

Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

ihavenooats.bsky.social•2 days ago

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

ihavenooats.bsky.social•2 days ago

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

steve1970peng.bsky.social•2 days ago

That was a court decision?

betsymendelsohn.bsky.social•2 days ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply