(10-03-2021, 01:39 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Not true. In America it actually started with Washington himself who enforced smallpox inoculation. Some historians go as far and claim that it was the deciding factor in the war.
Always was a controversial topic (as it should be) but on a state level we have seen it. Best example would be the smallpox legislation in Massachussets. Upheld by the supreme court more than 100 years later. Other good example would be the measles outbreak in Alaska in 1976. It´s not like the mandate didn´t exist prior to it but outbreaks like this forced the government to enforce them.
We have different vaccination requirements for public schools depending on the state. And obviously requirements for certain jobs (army, medical workers...).
Not to mention other highly developed countries. In the last 100 years most of western europe enforced polio, small pox, tuberculosis and measles vaccines. Got rid of it after the diseases was completly or nearly eliminated. A lot of them still have mandates for other diseases that are comparable to the public school requirements in most states.
Point taken @"dirkfansince1998". I should have more carefully stated in terms of clearly defining a vaccine mandate versus a forced vaccination.
https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-va...reme-court
Quote:But while the Cambridge vaccine order was compulsory, it wasn’t a “forced” vaccination. People like Jacobson who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine, the equivalent of nearly $150 today. On July 17, 1902, Dr. Spencer issued a criminal complaint against Jacobson and other anti-vaccine activists to collect that $5 fine.
The fine and the reasonable test are critical ideas here. A relatively small fine is very different for example from depriving a person of their means of living entirely. The very definition of government overreach.
Put this all in the context of the vaccine debate itself, i.e. there is significant debate from the medical community as to whether this qualifies as a real vaccine since many vaccinated people still get the disease and vaccinated people can still spread the disease.
Combine measures that clearly more than reasonable fines, with the speed to market of the vaccine, the fact that significant numbers of medical professionals and scientists question the degree of safety and the long term safety of the vaccine combined with the suppression of debate across the society and you have a recipe for a potential disaster for many citizens as well a precedent of completely surrendering to the government, your rights over your own body.
It exacerbates the issue to take a precedent setting $5 fine mandate and put that forth that an excuse to deprive people of life and liberty forcibly.
Quote:But in a reversal, the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 against broadly applying the logic of Jacobson to all COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. In Roman Catholic Diocese Of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, the Court decided that the State of New York violated the constitutional rights of citizens wanting to safely gather in churches and synagogues during the pandemic. The reasoning was that the lockdown laws barred religious gatherings altogether while still allowing secular business to operate at limited capacity.
“Jacobson hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch for the 5-4 majority. “That decision involved an entirely different mode of analysis, an entirely different right, and an entirely different kind of restriction.