Against mandating

11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.The national law made vaccination mandatory and when he was a child, he was vaccinated for smallpox.If you are at an office or shared network, you can ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network looking for misconfigured or infected devices.

against mandating-34against mandating-37

It’s rare for a federal circuit court to dispose of a case that quickly. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that states have the authority to require vaccination when legislatures deem it to be “necessary for the public health or the public safety.” More than 100 years of case law backs state vaccination mandates.

(“In every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members,” Justice John Harlan wrote in the 1905 opinion, “the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”) So I checked out Finn’s brief to the 2nd Circuit – and, I have to say, I found an argument more subtle and sophisticated than I’d have predicted from the 2nd Circuit’s quick ruling.

I’m personally a proponent of mandatory vaccination, for all of the public health rationales New York State lays out in its appellate brief in the Phillips case.

A leader in his community, Jacobson was one of the few who resisted mandatory vaccinations for smallpox in the early 20th century in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

While many were pleased to hear about a vaccine for smallpox, others were alarmed by the idea of being stabbed by a needle and having cowpox injected inside of them.


Leave a Reply