|This analysis by Mary Holland, President and General Counsel of Children’s Health Defense, was brought to our attention by the The Vaccine Court blog, authored by Minnesota’s own vaccine court expert Wayne Rohde, author of the book, and host of the Right On Point podcast.|
There are a lot of postings on social media, some articles in newspapers and imposter journalists all quoting bits and pieces of the US Supreme Court decision of Jacobson v MA back at the turn of the 20th century.
Most of the interpretations have been wrong due to parsing words from the decision to fit their narrative, “that the state has the right to impose a vaccine mandate on everyone”.
Most of them will not include the actual discussion and determination if the mandate is reasonable.
There are five basic criteria that the legislature must meet in order to impose a legitimate mandate. They are:
-That the vaccine has to be necessary. There has to be no better way to cope with this infectious disease, this contagious disease.
-Secondly, the vaccine has to be reasonable. There has to be some assurance that it is a relatively safe intervention.
-Third, the vaccine mandate has to proportionate to the threat. If it’s not a deadly disease, it may not be proportionate to impose a mandate at all.
-Fourth, if there are individuals who are at excess risk of injury or death from the vaccines, those people have a right to a medical exemption from the mandate because for those people, it is a matter of self-defense and is a matter of their right to life, to be able to be exempt from the mandate.
-Finally, the decision makes it clear that you cannot discriminate against any particular group, be it racial or ethnic or religious, in order to impose the mandate. If you’re going to impose the mandate on adults, it has to be all adults. If you’re going to impose the mandate on children, it has to be all children.
Listen to Mary Holland, President and General Counsel of Children’s Health Defense describe Jacobson v MA and the five criteria. This recording was from Nov 2020, the initial podcast episode of The Right on Point podcast.
One thought on “Oft-cited forced vaccine supreme court case, revisited. Jacobson vs. MA, 1905”
Dr David E Martin on the activatehumanity.com website indicated it should not have been the Jacobsen case.It should have been the Cruzon case. Sorry, you will just have to watch the 11/16 video on that site. Dr Martin does an excellent job of explaining things