Wednesday, September 15, 2021

Obstructing prevention of preventable deaths

In my opinion, Gov. Ivey and other ALGOP officials, leaders and influencers are guilty of obstructing the prevention of preventable COVID deaths in Alabama, and they should be publicly called out. This is particularly the case regarding vaccination mandates.

Alabama TV stations should participate in this calling out.

Also business chambers of commerce should participate in the calling out, or else themselves be guilty of obstructing the prevention of preventable COVID deaths in Alabama.

The calling out can be started in the form of asking, and getting answers to, the following three questions:

1. If you were Gov. Ivey, would you have imposed vaccine mandates? 
2. Do you think there have been COVID deaths that vaccine mandates would have prevented? 
3. Will history get written castigating those who obstructed preventing preventable deaths?

This has been initiated in the following ways:

9/17/21 The state attorneys general letter to Biden
Twenty three GOP state attorneys general have sent a letter to Biden threatening to sue over the vaccine mandate. The text of the letter can be found at https://www.scribd.com/document/525720934/AGs-Letter-to-Pres-Biden-on-Vaccine-Mandate-FINAL-02715056xD2C78/

In charging that, in opposing vaccine mandates, Gov. Ivey and other ALGOP officials, leaders and influencers are guilty of obstructing the prevention of preventable COVID deaths and preventable hospitalizations in Alabama, the contentions of the attorneys general letter need to be considered.

Vaccine mandates by the government are an exercise of the government's power (and obligation) to protect public health and safety, which the United States Supreme Court passed on in the 1905 Jacobson case. The decision in the Jacobson case is fairly indicated in the Wikipedia entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts as follows 

Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]

Furthermore, the Court held that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public".[2] In Massachusetts, with smallpox being "prevalent and increasing in Cambridge", the regulation in question was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety".[2] The Court noted that Jacobson had offered proof that there were many in the medical community who believed that the smallpox vaccine would not stop the spread of the disease and, in fact, may cause other diseases of the body.[2] However, the opinions offered by Jacobson were "more formidable by their number than by their inherent value" and "[w]hat everybody knows, ... [the] opposite theory accords with the common belief and is maintained by high medical authority."[2] Therefore, it was left to the legislature, not the courts, to determine which of the "two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease".[2] No one could "confidently assert that the means prescribed by the State to that end has no real or substantial relation to the protection of the public health and the public safety".[2]

Finally, the Court acknowledged that, in "extreme cases", for certain individuals "in a particular condition of ... health", the requirement of vaccination would be "cruel and inhuman[e]", in which case, courts would be empowered to interfere in order to "prevent wrong and oppression".[2] However, the statute in question was not "intended to be applied to such a case" and Jacobson "did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was, in fact, not a fit subject of vaccination".[2]l


The attorneys general letter says
“Your plan is disastrous and counterproductive. From a policy perspective, this edict is unlikely to win hearts and minds – it will simply drive further skepticism. And at least some Americans will simply leave the job market instead of complying. This will further strain an already-two-tight labor market, burdening companies and (therefore) threatening the jobs of even those who have received a vaccine. Worse still, many of those who decide to leave their jobs rather than follow your directive will be essential health care workers. This is no idle speculation. A New York hospital recently announced its plans to stop delivering babies after several staff members resigned in the face of New York mandate. And recent polling suggests those frontline health care workers are not outliers. Thus, Mr. President, your vaccination mandate represents not only a threat to individual liberty, but a public health disaster that will displace vulnerable workers and exacerbate a nationwide hospital staffing crisis, with severe consequences for all Americans.”

The core issue here is whether Alabama should or should not have governmentally imposed vaccine mandates. If Gov. Ivey says Alabama should not have governmentally imposed vaccine mandates, she should give her justification for that, including, for example, a statement of her judgment or opinion that governmentally imposed vaccine mandates would not result in fewer deaths and fewer hospitalizations than would happen if there are not governmentally imposed vaccine mandates. 

If Gov. Ivey's judgment is that governmentally imposed vaccine mandates would reduce deaths and hospitalizations, then, if it is her decision nonetheless not to impose governmental vaccine mandates, she needs state the reasons why she has chosen for there to be deaths and hospitalizations that she could have prevented.

The foregoing is needed for voters to evaluate Gov. Ivey's performance as Governor in fulfilling her obligation to protect the health and safety of Alabamians.

If Gov. Ivey says she would impose governmental vaccine mandates, but she is not imposing them because the Alabama legislature has passed a law preventing her from imposing the mandates, she should expressly say that, in which case the legislators who voted tor the law preventing Gov. Ivey from imposing mandates would need to defend their vote to the voters. Their defense may be that their judgment is that governmental mandates would not reduce deaths and hospitalizations in Alabama. If that is not their judgement, then they need to give reasons why they acted to prevent Gov. Ivey from preventing deaths and hospitalizations.

For more, see Gov. Ivey and vaccine mandates


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)