There’s an increasing momentum gathering right now against the anti-vax movement for various (and very obvious) reasons. An excellent example of the kind of frustration those individuals have created for the rest of us is manifested in Rule Of Claw’s diary from 31 August titled
Don't Want Another Vaccination Clinic Shut Down? Here Are Some Ideas To Enact Into Law
As in most everything else that retards any progress in this country, nearly all of the anti-vax crowd claim that mandated masks and preventative hygiene measures, vaccines and treatments are “unconstitutional” and inhibit a person’s “freedoms”. But, as a point of fact, that same complaint has been the neocon rallying cry for riots, an insurrection and wheedling on television talk shows. However... would it surprise you that this argument has been made 116 years ago before one of the most staunchly conservative Supreme Courts in this country’s history - and shot down like a quail hit with single- aught buckshot?
It was 1901 - During the Boston smallpox epidemic, there were similar “anti-vax” persons who harbored similar notions to today’s intransigent anti-society ingrates against the smallpox vaccine that was mandated for public inoculation in a Massachusetts township. Without the benefits of modern epidemiological science to protect the public, one such local resident took issue with the mandate — intended to stave off the spread of smallpox that was killing people — and when he was punished for his intransigence, he took his arguments all the way to the Supreme Court. The case is Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). You can read both the syllabus and the entire judgement at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ ; however, here is an excerpt from a concluding opinion in the judgement:
“The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”
Chew on THAT ONE for awhile, neocon “patriots”.
Reading the case background and judgement exposes an amazing parallel to today’s vocal, shrill protestations and aggressive rejection of 21st century medical science while addressing both the political and human issues in a carefully crafted rebuke. It’s worth taking the time to explore it and realize that this ruling has not lost any of its truths in 116 years. In my opinion, it’s a damned disgrace that current leadership doesn’t seem to have the courage of their convictions to enforce that kind of Constitutionally-inferred responsibility to the general Public and their constituents with the same vigor and sense of urgency. And it damned sure would not be mentioned or sustained by the current Supreme Court majority.