Posted on Jan 19, 2021
Is Mandatory Vaccination Legal in Time of Epidemic?
844
6
3
3
3
0
Please note the date and subject of this article before commenting.
Imagine that Joseph, a 21-year-old student at a state university in Illinois, is spending 3 months in China for a summer study program abroad. While he is there, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) breaks out in Canada and is traced back to China.
When SARS shows up in Canada, Illinois immediately creates a mandatory vaccine for all those who are currently in China or certain areas of Canada, or all those who plan to go there in the next few years. The new vaccination is commonly believed to be effective and is widely approved by the medical community. However, some in the medical community believe that the vaccination is worthless in preventing the spread of SARS and that it has injurious side effects.
Joseph feels confident that he will not contract SARS. He has been in China for a month, is perfectly healthy, and is not in the region of the outbreak. He is willing to submit to a physical but does not want the “experimental” vaccination and its side effects. He also feels that this mandatory vaccination affronts his bodily integrity and violates his 14th Amendment rights.
Also note the following information from the following article from 2002.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) emerged in China in 2002 and spread to other countries before brought under control. Because of a concern for reemergence or a deliberate release of the SARS coronavirus, vaccine development was initiated. Evaluations of an inactivated whole virus vaccine in ferrets and nonhuman primates and a virus-like-particle vaccine in mice induced protection against infection but challenged animals exhibited an immunopathologic-type lung disease.
These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/
If you have gotten this far in the details, you may want to question why they have not previously been able to develop a viable vaccine for SARS in the past 18+ years and they have developed 2 or more in less than a year.
Imagine that Joseph, a 21-year-old student at a state university in Illinois, is spending 3 months in China for a summer study program abroad. While he is there, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) breaks out in Canada and is traced back to China.
When SARS shows up in Canada, Illinois immediately creates a mandatory vaccine for all those who are currently in China or certain areas of Canada, or all those who plan to go there in the next few years. The new vaccination is commonly believed to be effective and is widely approved by the medical community. However, some in the medical community believe that the vaccination is worthless in preventing the spread of SARS and that it has injurious side effects.
Joseph feels confident that he will not contract SARS. He has been in China for a month, is perfectly healthy, and is not in the region of the outbreak. He is willing to submit to a physical but does not want the “experimental” vaccination and its side effects. He also feels that this mandatory vaccination affronts his bodily integrity and violates his 14th Amendment rights.
Also note the following information from the following article from 2002.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) emerged in China in 2002 and spread to other countries before brought under control. Because of a concern for reemergence or a deliberate release of the SARS coronavirus, vaccine development was initiated. Evaluations of an inactivated whole virus vaccine in ferrets and nonhuman primates and a virus-like-particle vaccine in mice induced protection against infection but challenged animals exhibited an immunopathologic-type lung disease.
These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/
If you have gotten this far in the details, you may want to question why they have not previously been able to develop a viable vaccine for SARS in the past 18+ years and they have developed 2 or more in less than a year.
_0.jpg?1611116926)
Is Mandatory Vaccination Legal in Time of Epidemic?
Posted from journalofethics.ama-assn.org
Coronavirus COVID19
Health
Medical
Government
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Outside of a truly dire situation, removing a person’s bodily autonomy is likely not to stand much judicial scrutiny. Having said that, the increasing number of anti-abortion laws are slowly breaking down standards on bodily autonomy and may lead to this sort of thing being deemed legal, even in less dire situations (I’d consider COVID to be such a less dire situation, just deadly enough where we need to take it seriously but not deadly enough for extreme measures).
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
So basically according to this article.... if the department of health deems it neccessary, the state can force anyone and everyone to be vaccinated against their will and will not be violating the constitution? .... and the health department could very well just say it's mandatory because they were promised additional funding from bill gates? We haven't been able to make a vaccine for this in over 18 years but we're gonna pump out 2 in 9 months and force the nation to take it so our net worth keeps increasing and who cares about the side effects because, as long as the health department says its mandatory, no one has a choice...... because the welfare of the nation outweighs your religious freedom... too bad our world health leaders are obese, malnourished, and look like tales from the crypt, driven by power and greed. You cannot trust people who twist, bend and lie for recognition, power, and fame.
Yet when reading the 14th amendment as it states "No state shall make or enforce ANY law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Abridge, in July 9 1868, given the context of the paragraph is meaning; shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents.
Privileges: a right, immunity, or benefit
Immunities: exemption from obligation, service, duty, or liability to taxation, jurisdiction.
Basically stating that no state shall enforce any law that alters the privileges or exemptions of cirizensbof the United States..."
Section 2 discusses hownmany represntatives will be in wach state based off population and section 3 talks about elected officials being ineligible to hold office if they engage in insurrection or rebellion against the nation. Section 4 is about nation debt and section 5 gives congress the power to enforce what is outlined.
It does state "without due process of law", meaning thatcyes these rights and privileges may be changed withcdue process, but it must be legitimate, valid and fair.
There is however NO MENTION of healthcare, herd immunity, health departments, or the like.
Yet when reading the 14th amendment as it states "No state shall make or enforce ANY law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Abridge, in July 9 1868, given the context of the paragraph is meaning; shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents.
Privileges: a right, immunity, or benefit
Immunities: exemption from obligation, service, duty, or liability to taxation, jurisdiction.
Basically stating that no state shall enforce any law that alters the privileges or exemptions of cirizensbof the United States..."
Section 2 discusses hownmany represntatives will be in wach state based off population and section 3 talks about elected officials being ineligible to hold office if they engage in insurrection or rebellion against the nation. Section 4 is about nation debt and section 5 gives congress the power to enforce what is outlined.
It does state "without due process of law", meaning thatcyes these rights and privileges may be changed withcdue process, but it must be legitimate, valid and fair.
There is however NO MENTION of healthcare, herd immunity, health departments, or the like.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
In reading this article and being familiar with The US Constitution,(as we all should be), at the end of the day there will always be a group of people that will impose their demands and requirements on others and there will always be people who will stand against what is believed to be a violation of the Constitution. This said, it is Federal Law and defined by CDC that no vaccine that is under Emergency Authorization Use can be forced upon a citizen by their physician, place of employment, or government. The SARS-COV2 vaccine is still in clinical trials for at least two more years.
Now will there be push against this? I am sure there will be, especially within the medical community there are employment opportunities that are lost due to those of us who will not( or cannot) take this vaccine.
Now will there be push against this? I am sure there will be, especially within the medical community there are employment opportunities that are lost due to those of us who will not( or cannot) take this vaccine.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google