The Supreme Court responds to the vaccination controversy …

… over a hundred years ago:

“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. … [T]he answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare […] and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few.”

JACOBSON v. MASSACH– USETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Comment: I’ll go along with vaccination choice, in conjunction with mandatory quarantine of people who choose to not be vaccinated. If house arrest is good enough for Kaci Hickox, it’s good enough for them, too.

Your Comment