Vaccination mandates test boundaries of our liberty
Nathan Collins, Guest Writer
As the effects of COVID-19 diminish, a new rallying cry echoes throughout the nation. The Biden administration and the media establishment are promoting the idea that Americans should willingly relinquish sovereignty over personal health choices. If that were not enough, Americans are also being encouraged to participate in a potential electronic vaccine tracking system, a “vaccine passport.”
Proponents have indicated that access to daily activities such as attending concerts, baseball games, public transportation or even going to the grocery store could be restricted or prohibited for those who do not participate. Often, resistance to these types of mandates and requirements are quickly dismissed by proponents as “anti-science” or “anti-vax,” and in some cases those accusations may be true. But for most people, the crux of this debate is what it means to live freely and exercise personal liberty in America without discrimination.
Many have argued that Americans should roll up their sleeves and “take the shot” for “the greater good.” The idea of sacrificing for the greater good may sound noble, but it is not the same as “promoting the general welfare,” as written in the preamble of the United States Constitution. Promoting the general welfare leads all members of a nation toward the blessings of liberty; in contrast, sacrificing personal freedom and liberty for the greater good leads a nation closer to communism and dictatorship.
We do not have to look too far back in human history to observe examples of governments who were confident their horrendous actions were for that greater good and the benefit of humanity.
In 1947, as a result of one nation’s experimentation and exploitation of an entire people group, the Nuremberg Code was written to set forth legal and ethical constraints and standards for experimentation.
In the case of our current “emergency authorized COVID-19 vaccines,” many elements of the Nuremberg Code have been ignored to take action in response to the pandemic. Obviously, no government agency in the United States is forcing anyone to take a COVID-19 vaccine; no one would approve of that. Instead, government agencies are proposing a vaccine passport system or requiring proof of vaccination to participate in normal daily activities, which are, in essence, methods of coercion and constraint.
It is important to remember, the COVID-19 vaccines are being administered under emergency authorization of the FDA and are considered experimental. The vaccines have not undergone the normal extent of clinical trials or animal testing. The manufacturers of these vaccines are not liable in civil actions for damages resulting in injury or death. And the Moderna and Pfizer “vaccines” are categorized as gene therapy (mRNA).
In a state of emergency, some or all of these steps may be prudent. But, requiring anyone to take a COVID-19 vaccine is, in effect, requiring the recipient to become a human guinea pig.
Recently, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was paused as a result of deaths related to blot-clotting issues. Many medical professionals who have expressed concerns regarding vaccine safety and side effects have been silenced. This is also true for many others in the medical field who have attempted to promote alternative treatment methods. As we continue to study COVID and the vaccines, we may discover additional side effects and consequences. Why force the issue, especially for healthy people?
With the increased availability of COVID-19 vaccines, the threat of vaccine discrimination is becoming more likely. If people have a healthy immune system and rarely get sick, why should they be required to take an experimental gene-therapy injection to work? This is outrageous. Those who choose not to take the vaccine may face state-mandated quarantines or complete prohibition of certain activities altogether.
One practical consideration will probably make it prohibitively difficult to impose a mandate. It is critical to avoid discrimination against individuals who should not take the COVID-19 vaccine due to underlying health issues, e.g., auto-immune conditions, or individuals who have naturally acquired antibodies from exposure to COVID-19. But, the stark reality is this: Any government that can coerce its people to take an experimental vaccine will have virtually no restraints in the future. If we fail to fend off this mandate, collective freedom and personal liberty may be lost forever.
Editor’s note: Nathan Collins lives in Charlestown.