Sunday, January 22, 2023

Wake up Florida: Your Governor, Ron DeSantis, is Totally Out of Control

Wearing a mask for virus protection in FL

History and the U.S. Supreme Court is on the side of mandates for masks and vaccinations cite this major public health case and decision:

“Jacobson v. Massachusetts: How a 1905 Court Case May Determine the Legality of Vaccine Mandates”

Though half of the country is now fully vaccinated, the United States continues to struggle against an anti-COVID-19 vaccination movement. As more employers, universities, businesses, and localities are requiring proof of vaccination before community interaction, legal challenges to vaccine mandates have arisen, dragging one Supreme Court case from over a century ago back into the spotlight.

Case Background: In 1905, citizens of the United States struggled with a different epidemic from the one we face today: smallpox.

Luckily, a vaccine had been invented, and under Massachusetts law, local municipalities could enforce compulsory free vaccinations for adults when deemed necessary to protect public health.

Individuals older than 21 who did not receive their vaccines could be fined ($5.00) though exceptions were made for children who had a valid doctor's note exempting them for medical reasons.

Cambridge, MA chose to take advantage of this law and mandate inoculation during an outbreak of smallpox, declaring that “the public health and safety require the vaccination or revaccination of all the inhabitants of Cambridge.”

Resident Henning Jacobson refused the vaccine for himself and his son claiming that they had bad reactions to previous vaccinations. In response, he was prosecuted and fined $5. 

His case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it set the precedent that may affect COVID-19 vaccination mandates today. In his defense, Jacobson said forcing him to receive the smallpox injection would violate the Constitution and infringe upon his liberty. His claim was based on the Constitution's Preamble, which states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Jacobson also alleged 14th Amendment violations, particularly the Equal Protection clause, which establishes that the laws of the nation should apply to all citizens equally.

SCOTUS Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the preamble, as Jacobson claimed, did convey the spirit of the law. However, they decided that the actual letter of the law was not violated, and, therefore, the vaccine mandate was not a constitutional violation of Jacobson's liberty.

In a 7-2 majority, the justices held that the mandate also did not violate the 14th Amendment, because medical exemptions were available for qualifying children. 

Though no adults were exempted, the court ruled that because it was the government's duty to protect public health, and because the mandate applied to all adults equally, it did not violate the Equal Protection clause. Jacobson's conviction for failing to get the vaccine and $5 fine were upheld.

What Jacobson Means for COVID-19: Predicting SCOTUS outcomes is never an exact science, so it is possible that legal challenges to any vaccine mandates may have unforeseen outcomes. But Supreme Court decisions often rely on past precedent to determine current-day cases, which means that if they have ruled on a similar case in the past, they will often use the same reasoning to justify a present decision. So although some states are enacting legislation that will make vaccine mandates illegal, the precedent from the Jacobson case means that, in the interest of protecting public health from the coronavirus, these new laws may not hold up if challenged,.

Case in point today is this story from FL:

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is again on the warpath to having only one kind of government – one that he favors and wants and orders regardless. This story headline from the NY Post:

“Ron DeSantis wants to permanently ban COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates”

CoVID and the CDC: They state that CoVID-19 vaccines help protect against severe illness, hospitalization, and death. CoVID-19 vaccines also help protect against infection.

People who are vaccinated may still get CoVID-19, but people who have been vaccinated get CoVID-19, they are much less likely to experience severe symptoms than people who are unvaccinated. When someone who is vaccinated with either a primary series or a primary series plus a booster dose gets infected with the virus that causes CoVID-19, it is referred to as a “vaccine breakthrough infection.”

Some if not most of the anti-vax arguments used against the CoVID vaccines are NOT ONLY the exaggerated side effect risk but also questions why a healthy young person should get one when their risks of mortality and serious illness from the disease are supposedly low.

That appears to have led to an erosion in vaccine compliance for several of our essential vaccines such as for the flu, measles, and even for polio. 

This is a tragic trajectory that could get worse. Vaccines are our greatest preventive public health tool after clean water. They need to be treated with the respect and compliance that they have earned. Yes, there are side effects for any vaccine – but not applicable to everyone who gets them, and the percentage remains low.

From the Mayo Clinic: How well do face masks protect against COVID-19, and do face masks help slow the spread of the virus? Yes; face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing, and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. If you have a weakened immune system or have a higher risk of serious illness, wear a mask that provides you with the most protection.

My 2 Cents: DeSantis is again way off the mark on this serious public health issue as well as other social and medical issues as well.

The list of anti-DeSantis things is long and can be seen here in this very good article from Yahoo.news with this headline: “What in the hell is wrong with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis?”

DeSantis attacks on public education are also well-known as seen in this AP African Studies Course which also shows his racist arrogance side which pitiful.

Reality hits home at home, Governor – oops

DeSantis comes across as some kind of Trump-lite in many ways and he surely is just like Trump as this expression says: “A clear and present danger” not only to FL but to the nation as a whole. 

He must never get elected president – never – at least in my view. 

Related DeSantis post here re: Anti-First Amendment case. 

Thanks for stopping by.

No comments: