I came across two news stories last week about vaccinations. While the political and medical discussion around vaccinations is outside the scope of what we do here at The Constitution Study, there is an underlying viewpoint we should look at.
Vaccination in the News
The first story I found involved an Arizona family. When the mother brought her 2-year-old son to a medical clinic with a high fever, the doctor recommended she take him to an emergency room. The mother was afraid she would be reported to the Arizona Dept. of Child Safety (DCS) because her son was not vaccinated. When the mother did not bring her child to the emergency room, the doctor called her and threatened to report her to DCS if she did not comply with his recommendation. The mother reported that her son’s temperature had dropped and there was no need for the emergency room visit. The doctor called DCS who, according to the report, “issued a court order” to take custody of the child for the night to receive treatment. (I’m guessing DCS received a court order since they are not a court and could not issue one themselves.) When the mother refused to exit her home, police barged through the door, took custody of all three children and placed the mother in handcuffs.
The second story involves a ban on unvaccinated children in public in Rockland County New York, including schools and houses of worship. The county has seen the longest measles outbreak since 2000, with more than 150 people infected since the fall of 2018. While a county official said law enforcement will not be checking vaccination records, parents will be held accountable if they are found to be in violation of the emergency declaration.
Constitutional Questions
While both of these stories deal with vaccinations, there is an underlying question I think we all need to address. Who “owns” your children? In both of these stories, we see the state dictating to families the medical care they must provide their children. In the Arizona story, we see a doctor with concerns about the health of a child and a mother afraid she might be reported for her decision about his medical care. But does the opinion of a doctor and a state official override the opinion of the parents? Yes, we have a moral concern for the health of the child, but without evidence of abuse or neglect, when does a difference of opinion turn into the legal authority to take possession of the children? In the New York story, we see the forced segregation of those who have concerns about certain medical treatments for the protection of others. And notice, Rockland County didn’t simply ban people from property they owned, but from other people’s private property as well. The people the government is “protecting” didn’t get any choice in the matter. What if the owners of restaurants, malls, or communities with houses of worship agree with those who choose not the have their children vaccinated? Were their rights considered in this decision?
Put another way, when did we hand over to the state the moral authority to determine how we live our lives and how our children should be raised? Do we believe that receiving a paycheck from a government agency suddenly gives people omnipotence? Just because someone works for the government does not mean they know everything about you and your family or what is best for them. Working for a government office does not mean someone cannot make mistakes, just like having a government title does not exempt someone from wanting to exercise undue power over others.
Who’s In Charge?
[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
The United States of America was founded on the principal that the people are sovereign, and that they form governments to protect their rights, not to protect them from harm. This may seem like a small distinction, but it’s a rather important one. We see in Arizona and New York two instances of people in the government ruling over their fellow citizens. If you think these are isolated incidents, think again. The news is full of stories of people in government dictating to the populations they supposedly serve like feudal lords over their peasants. Whether it’s telling the people what will be allowed or requiring them to get permission from those in government before they can exercise their rights, we see one class of Americans ruling over the rest of us. This class may be chosen by election rather than heredity, yet it is the same aristocracy we have seen so many times in history.
Conclusion
When we dig a little deeper than the surface discussion, we see that these two incidents are symptoms of a much larger debate going on in this nation. At heart, it’s between two very basic world-views, both of which put forth the question of who is sovereign over whom? Do government officials work for the people? Do they derive their just powers from our consent and only from our consent? Or do they rule over us, deciding for themselves where and how they have power over us? Did we throw off one ruling class only to elect a new one 200 years later? Feel free to debate the merits and consequences of vaccinations, but don’t ignore the fact that here we see government officials ruling over their subjects backed up with the force of arms. We must all decide whether we will live in a land ruled by the people or by the elected aristocracy. As our Founding Fathers noted when they threw off their aristocrats:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I agree with what you stated, but the new argument from those who wish to impose forced vaccines on children despite their parents’ wishes is that they’re “protecting the rights of the children.” They have it in their minds that “children have a right to ‘proper’ medical care.” In their opinion, that means that children “have a ‘right’ to be vaccinated.” I would argue that children have the right to not have their immune systems permanently altered by biologics that may or may not confer immunity for a short period of time, leaving them vulnerable when they’re older and possible complications more severe.
Your comment shows you understand the issues at hand, and the root cause that I was talking about. Who “owns”, who is responsbile for making the decisions for your children? If they are “your” children, you are responsbile for protecting their rights like life, liberty and the prusuit of happiness. If the children belong to the “state”, then they are responsible for providing these.
Since nowhere, in any constitution in the United States of America that I am aware of, do “We The People” delegate to any government the authority to provide for or determine what is best for our children, it is up to us to push back when they try to take that from us. It is human nature to assume we are right, that we kjnow better than anyone else, and to want to force others to comply with our will. The very structure of this nation was designed to have competing forces, protecting their own sovereignty, to prevent any one group from gaining the power to dictate their will onto others.
Sadly, few Americans look beyond what they are going to get for “free”.
Yes. Children own themselves. But children are not developed enough to take responsibility for themselves or their own care. Parents are responsible for keeping their children safe. The state seems to have a different idea of what that means, and wants to impose their idea of what keeps kids safe. I just want the freedom to decide for my own children based on information and personal experiences I’ve had. I’m also not gaining any campaign “donations” by attempting to force my will on everyone else like the state does. Forced vaccines is all about money, veiled in the lie of protecting public health. No one has any “right” to be free from communicable illnesses. Nature doesn’t work that way and neither do vaccines. pHARMa is banking on womb to tomb indentured patients by forcing their vaccines on everyone via legislation that they’ve written and bribed states to sponsor and pass.