In the aftermath of last week’s announcement that masks were no longer mandatory in most situations, the entire liberal establishment has gone into a frenzy over what they openly construe as unearned freedoms wherein non-vaccinated people could ignore the qualifier to use masks and assume freedoms granted to vaccinated people. Ignoring for the moment what true freedoms are granted to us in the constitution, I speak of ‘freedoms’ simply in the context of the CDC declaration. In spite of the CDC change, the notion of vaccine passports has not at all gone away and in fact could be a sop thrown to progressives that demand that the non-vaccinated, whom they largely perceive as conservative, must pay a price if they cannot keep everyone muzzled indefinitely.
Alan Dershowitz did an interview in which he predicted that courts would ultimately uphold vaccine passports when challenged. In that interview, he articulates the general legal premise that states would use to force use of vaccine passports. I’d summarize the argument thus: It is my right to do and go where I want vs. other people’s claim of a right to know whether they’re in the presence of unvaccinated people. I should also note that Mr. Dershowitz doesn’t express his position on the question but rather on what he expects the courts will do, I don’t necessarily disagree with his assessment, but then again, there is a lot left out of his analysis.
I covered this question recently – here, in Northeast Reader . My core argument was that if the vaccine works, you’re covered, so why destroy the civil and human rights of individuals of those that are conscientious objectors? (Hint: Those objectors are a lot more than just conservatives.) I express in my article that I believe the vaccines work, that I’ve been vaccinated, but I also believe that it’s critical that we preserve the rights of those that object for any reason, because to not do so, I believe, seriously crosses a line in jurisprudence and constitutional freedoms.
Proponents of vaccine passports might point to state mandated child vaccines or travel mandated vaccinations required to enter some other countries. I don’t deny those factors, but the notion of creating a new, far more invasive, and permanent legal precedent for a government sponsored medical procedure (directly or indirectly through private companies), is a huge leap in state and or federal power that has grave consequences down the road.
Let’s go in front of the supreme court where this might ultimately be heard. What arguments might be made? The government regulates measles vaccinations for example but does not require proof from adult citizens. What over-riding cause does Covid present that isn’t true of measles? Flu vaccines are voluntary, but do not have to be disclosed. They’re also far less effective than the Covid vaccine.
In a post-pandemic scenario, and with better Covid therapies, especially for elderly, it’s possible that morbidity for the two infection may not be that different. Does the federal government require passports for flu? There are even more important reasons:
If Covid passports were to be sanctioned by the courts:
- They can demand proof of treatment for vaccine for ANY medical condition – that includes the next Aids, any treatment, any vaccine. The precedent has been set and it will be involatile for the foreseeable future
- It will also set the precedent for mandating any other vaccine and proof of vaccine no matter how effective or dangerous it is.
- It would be a generational gift to the pharmaceutical industry which can then invent vaccines and spurious needs for vaccines in perpetuity at the expense of your health, and as learned from past experience with even widely accepted pharmaceuticals, those could in fact be devastating and we wouldn’t necessarily know for months or years. So how is this different than now? Now we have a choice and can be objectors. Government involvement could demand immediate and full public compliance under any premise, eliminating what is essentially, a necessary phase of drug trial, that of the first adopters either validating or proving wrong the FDA declared safety of a drug or vaccine.
- Finally, what happens when government actually passes the threshold of good faith disease mitigation and starts to mandate ANYTHING else beyond that? Use your imagination people. Chips do exist, psycho altering drugs have existed for hundreds of years. It doesn’t matter whether you believe that the good people in government would ever try to use that against you, the question here is setting the LEGAL precedent by any future government administration and it may not be the one that you feel is friendly today. Malicious drugs and technology already exist, dictatorial leftist social engineers are already here, a valid legal framework is ALL that they have left to complete.
For law to work, it has to have precedent in the past, be respectful to all parties in the present and take into consideration whose hands it will be in in the future.
Covid is on the wane. I believe it will linger a long time but will be managable from a medical perspective. Progressives have used it to as a premise for raw abuse of power. That must no longer be the case. Based on the projection of data that I see, new Covid cases are crashing. I predict that we will be at a functional -zero- point by the end of May with only occasional flare-ups across the country after that. The entire argument I make here will be unnecessary and yet there will be a few is the last gasp progressive pandemic panic industry who will still raise the prospect. Shut them down.