By Bob Walsh
The history on this goes back to the 1905 case of
Jacobson v Massachusetts. This law mandated a $5 fine for persons who
refuse smallpox vaccination. In addition all 50 states have laws on the
book that permit the state to lock up people who have active TB and who
refuse treatment.
The
question before the court now may be whether or not the medical
requirement (i.e. vaccination) ACTUALLY does prevent the transmission of
disease.
Last year the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals jumped in and in August of this year an
en banc decision by the Ninth Circuit set things up for a SCOTUS review.
The
case of Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho challenged the LAUSD
Covid-19 vaccine mandate for school employees. The argument was
simple. If the shot does in fact NOT prevent transmission the basic
premise of Jacobson is meaningless. That seems to switch the question
to Cruzan v. Missouri Dept. of health (1990) in which SCOTUS reaffirmed
the right of the individual to refuse medical treatment.
Back
in August the Ninth Circuit REAFFIRMED Jacobson even in the absence of
verifiable prevention. The plaintiff has about another six weeks to
file a SCOTUS appeal. It is not clear what will happen, and is not
clear that SCOTUS will take the case even if it gets that far.
No comments:
Post a Comment