Vax passports a bridge too far
Immunizing public necessary, but disenfranchisement isn’t
There should be no debate about COVID vaccines — they help protect people from death and serious illness. But there should also be no debate about vaccine passports — they are illegal and dangerous to democracy.
Central to the success of American democracy is freedom of the individual. This is not to say all restrictions on liberty are unlawful, but rather that any restriction on liberty ought to be very carefully considered — because once an intrusion is authorized, the liberty lost will never be regained.
Government mandated intrusions inside the body implicate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures of persons. Such intrusions are unconstitutional even when they leave nothing behind, and COVID vaccines leave a lot behind, such as polyethylene glycol, distearoyl-sn-glycero3-phosphocholine, and, for the Moderna vaccine, something called SM-102, the components of which you are not allowed to know about because the government has deemed it “proprietary.”
Protecting “proprietary” information is not more important than ensuring that people have all the information they need to make an informed decision about whether to accept the injection of a substance into their bodies.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court long ago approved vaccine mandates in the 1905 case Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, which held that states may require vaccines even though they infringe on people’s liberty, so long as the vaccine is designed to protect the public health, is “reasonable,” and is not “arbitrary and oppressive.”
Mr. Jacobsen was required to take a smallpox vaccine in accordance with regulations adopted by the City of Cambridge, but he refused. The regulations said anyone who refused a vaccine could be charged with a misdemeanor and fined $5. This was a reasonable regulation because anyone who refused a vaccine could simply choose to pay a meager fine.
But COVID vaccine mandates are not “reasonable” under Jacobsen because those who wish to opt out face not a small fine but total loss of income, and inability to participate in the most basic aspects of public life.
This is not to say vaccines should not be encouraged. They work, and they save lives — not just by preventing COVID but also by reducing severity of symptoms and making it easier for the body to handle the infection. But people who resist COVID vaccines have valid concerns about the absence of long-term data, and the fact that the vaccines stop working after a few months, and don’t prevent infection or transmission.
Data also shows that a small percentage of people suffer serious injuries, and even death, from the COVID vaccine. Considering all this information, people should have a right to decide for themselves whether to be vaccinated, and they should not be denied access to public services when they decide the vaccine is not right for them.
The question is not whether diseases like COVID are the government’s business — of course they are. But that does not mean mandatory vaccines are the answer and that vaccine passports are necessary to protect the public.
Massachusetts doesn’t have a vaccine mandate yet, and it should never get one, because forcing people to submit to the injection of a substance into their bodies, especially where knowledge of ingredients is restricted and public benefits are meager, is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
As Justice Louis Brandeis said many years ago, “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men (and women)” is “the right to be let alone.”
This notion of basic personhood is the essence of how democracy works: selfgovernance. Sometimes individual rights must give way to the interests of the greater good, but since COVID vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, requiring people to be vaccinated is unreasonable — even though requiring smallpox vaccines was reasonable because that vaccine did prevent infection and transmission.
Studies show that at least a third of the public is suspicious of government mandates, and history has provided us with many examples of government mandates with sinister components. The Tuskegee experiment and internment of Japanese citizens, both of which were considered “necessary” to protect the public, rightly make people leery of obeying the government blindly.
Using punishments and fear to compel submission will only make things worse.
Instead of vaccine passports, how about mask passports? More and better use of masks makes sense to reduce transmission by physically blocking the emission of body fluids from people’s mouths and noses.
The government should encourage — not force — COVID vaccines. Punishing people who choose not to accept a vaccine with limited benefits by forbidding them to ride on public transportation, go to school, or buy milk, is craziness.
Even the vaccinated will rise up if the hand of government gets too heavy.