US Supreme Court upholds state power to enforce compulsory vaccination (1905)

en.wikipedia.org

34 pointsgeneralpass5 comments

Interesting line drawn by the ruling. The government can enforce consequences but not forcibly vaccinate.

>Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7-2 majority. He rejected Jacobson's claim that the Fourteenth Amendment gave him the right to refuse vaccination. Harlan deemed that the Massachusetts state punishment of a fine or imprisonment on those who refused vaccines was acceptable, but those individuals could not be forcibly vaccinated.

If you can show you have the antibody response, you might be able to argue that you've had the vaccination.

I'd wager that depends on how the law is written. The court may be unwilling to make scientific conclusions, unless the law is somehow vague on the matter. IOW, if the law states, "every one shall receive the following vaccination," I doubt a court would allow the presence of antibodies to preclude enforcement of such a law.

How would they deal with someone who would have a deathly allergic reaction to the vaccine?

The cynic in me says they would find that risking the death from the vaccine outweighs the risk of spreading the virus, even where that risk is 100%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com