On October 6, State Sen. Tony Hwang printed an opinion article about vaccine mandates. On this piece, Senator Hwang claims that vaccine mandates “appear to violate the due course of rights assured by the Fourteenth Modification to the US Structure.” Though Senator Hwang acknowledges the authorized precedent for vaccine mandates established by the Supreme Court docket’s determination in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), he argues that the choice is “jarring and opposite at present due to the pro-choice/physique rights revolution in 20th century American legislation.”
In accordance with Hwang, high-profile Supreme Court docket instances determined after Jacobson, together with Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965), Loving v. Virginia (1967), Roe v. Wade (1973), United States v. Stanley (1987), and Washington v. Harper (1990), “limits the facility of the state to the touch the physique.”
Senator Hwang is, in fact, right when he notes that case legislation has developed since Jacobson. Throughout the twentieth century, the Supreme Court docket acknowledged that the due course of clause gives a constitutional proper to privateness that extends to medical decision-making. Nonetheless, Senator Hwang’s argument that vaccine mandates violate due course of rights is doubtful at finest, and his article accommodates deceptive authorized assertions about Supreme Court docket precedent.
Federal courts have repeatedly acknowledged the viability of the Supreme Court docket’s determination in Jacobson. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court docket, referencing Jacobson, famous that the precise to privateness in medical decision-making will not be absolute and have to be balanced in opposition to vital state pursuits like preserving public well being.
Washington v. Harper additionally balances the precise to privateness with state pursuits. In Washington, the Supreme Court docket held that the due course of clause permits the state to deal with a jail inmate with antipsychotic medicine in opposition to his will. Whereas the bulk acknowledged that there’s a “liberty curiosity in being free from arbitrary administration of medicine,” they finally discovered that the forcible administration of antipsychotic medicine comported with due course of necessities as a result of it was “fairly associated to authentic penological pursuits.”
COVID-19 vaccine mandates have additionally survived current authorized challenges. In August, U.S. District Decide Jeffery Meyer dismissed a complaint filed against the University of Connecticut’s vaccine mandate. Moreover, each the Supreme Court docket and the US Court docket of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the states of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, have dismissed legal challenges to COVID-19 vaccine mandates brought by employees of New York City public schools under the due process clause.
I like Senator Hwang’s assist for the COVID-19 vaccine. Not like many members of the Republican celebration, Senator Hwang has persistently affirmed his perception within the security and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Nonetheless, his authorized arguments in opposition to vaccine mandates don’t maintain up below scrutiny.
Kelsey Mullane lives in Branford.
CTViewpoints welcomes rebuttal or opposing views to this and all its commentaries. Learn our pointers and submit your commentary here.