Vaccinations by the state
Reichsführer Perry is mad with power. How else can you explain his executive order mandating that Texas girls ages 11 and 12 receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before entering the sixth grade starting in September 2008?
The principled Libertarian view is that Perry's order is an aggression on the bodies of these young girls. But, of course, all forms of compulsory vaccination are an aggression on the body of those vaccinated against their will.
The really odd piece of the Texas Gov. Perry mandate is that HPV is not spread by casual contact, nor is it associated with pandemic or epidemic outbreaks of cervical cancer, or even localized outbreaks of such cancer. It is a disease that requires intimate contact in order to spread.
All vaccinations simply protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated. If you chose to protect yourself and your children, get your family vaccinated. Otherwise, accept whatever fate awaits you.
Your choice of whether or not to be vaccinated does not affect the previously vaccinated in any way. And, in some cases, the choice to remain unvaccinated is the rational, healthy choice. Healthcare, like all other issues, is within the private realm, and state officials have no moral business in such affairs.
So, what's behind the mandate? From some reports, it appears that Merck is pushing for its vaccine, Gardasil, to be mandated by states for all public school girls.
Yet, that is only half of the story. It's the political ilk such as Perry who see their role as saviors of the masses. Property rights are meaningless when these maniacal lot take on their next crusade.
One saving grace, the vaccine is only required for public school students. So, boycott that wretched school system and you also boycott the mandatory vaccination of your children. For now, anyway.
Comments (21)
obviously, there's more votes in looking like you're doing something, than in doing nothing! It's our own fault. Whenever I saw a politician doing nothing, or reading a comic in Parliament, I thought, 'You lazy seat-warmer!' I should have thought, 'You wise practicer of the wait-and-see school of thought!' Perhaps we should praise anyone found not paying attention to the party platform. Maybe we should send cushions in for all of them to sleep on!
On a completely different topic, I am trying to tell freedom-loving critters about an idea I had for a symbol of freedom. The sign of the U.N. is a globe, and the U.N. is seen as an anti- individualistic place, so why not have a circle or globe, with an red 'X' over it? This symbol would be symmetrical, easy to make, and is easy to understand (Excluding the world from your world). If it were put on a flag, the flag should be royal purple, because I want to extend the principle of monarchy to every individual, so we are all rulers of our own lands and goods.
Thanks for listening to me- oh, by the way, who would you recommend as the society here in Australia which is most like the Austrian school, or the Ludwig von Mises Institute?
Published: February 9, 2007 12:29 AM
It is not really "required" at all:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20074
You too are the victim of a hoax.
Published: February 9, 2007 1:40 AM
As a non-vaccinating parent and a libertarian, I agree with your conclusions. However, there is one statement you made that I believe to be incorrect.
You said, "Your choice of whether or not to be vaccinated does not affect the previously vaccinated in any way." However, as I understand it a vaccine conferring immunity is only about 80% effective. This means that 20% of those vaccinated against German measles, for example, do not carry an immunity to the disease.
What the CDC and others are counting on is the "herd immunity" effect. Meaning that if a certain critical mass of the population is immune, the disease will not be able to spread among its members. Therefore, if enough people opt out of vaccination, some of those vaccinated will remain at risk.
Even so, Healthcare--as you say--is an inherently private choice, and should not be forced upon anyone.
Published: February 9, 2007 6:16 AM
Greetings from the People's Republic of Texas. We'd welcome liberating help from other states such as we received in 1836, but unfortunately the rest of the country went socialist, years ago.
I see I'm not the only one identifying Perry with Hitlerian epithets. And you are correct that "following the money" is only half of the story. I'm so tired of our "Benefactors" "helping" us, and I'm so angry that the governor thinks he can order our daughters around like they are part of the militia. But I'm thankful that my wife (expecting twins) was homeschooled and persuaded me to agree to the same before we married; our boycott of the public school system was decided long ago.
Another problem here is that the separation of powers doctrine has just gone out the window. And nobody cares, because after all, it's important for an executive to just do what needs to be done. Lincoln taught us so.
Published: February 9, 2007 6:37 AM
Mike N.,
The actual executive order reads:
(emphasis mine)True, parents can opt out by submitting a conscientious objection affidavit. But, what constitutes conscientious objection? Am I free if I have to continually submit conscientious objection forms in order to protect my rights.
Supposedly, the Declaration and Constitution are my official conscientious objections to all govermental intrusions. Signing a form proves no such documents carry weight in Texas.
Published: February 9, 2007 7:31 AM
It truly amazes me that anyone who claims the legacy of American liberty would not be outraged at this governor. I'm even more amazed that there are people who support him.
Amazed.
Published: February 9, 2007 9:18 AM
In case you cared, Eugene Volokh has clarified, announced and declared yet another libertarian principle:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_02_04-2007_02_10.shtml#1170719295
"A requirement that people not allow their bodies to be media for unwitting transmission of deadly diseases strikes me as quite compatible with a generally libertarian perspective on the world."
Got that? This REQUIREMENT is 'quite compatible' with libertarianism. So saunter up and take a hypodermic for the state, freedom lovers!
Sheesh!
Published: February 9, 2007 11:00 AM
The media in Texas has been focusing on the effectiveness of the vaccine, rather than on the serious civil liberties issue generated out of this "rcommendiation" (rather, mandate) from Gov. Perry. Reporters and anchors seemingly do not find the attack on freedom as problematic as the success rate of the vaccine, nor do doctors. As the days go by, I will keep a watch on this circus, hoping that at least one person that objects to this does so out of principle and not mere pragmatism.
Published: February 9, 2007 12:45 PM
There is no law in America, aside from those applying to medical workers, that says you or your child has to take any vaccine whatsoever, no matter what any executive order, requirement, mandate or policy dictates, there is no situation where you can go to prison for refusing a government vaccine under the U.S. constitution and the law of the land.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20074
Published: February 9, 2007 2:37 PM
As in the case of all other vaccines, Perry's executive order merely states that the vaccine is "recommended," yet the mass media drumbeat constantly conditions people to believe that if they don't take their shots they will be kicked out of school, arrested and thrown in jail. This trick will continue to hoodwink Americans into taking all manner of dangerous and untested vaccines, the number of which rises every year, until they realize that there is no law that forces them to take any vaccine.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20074
Published: February 9, 2007 2:42 PM
Ads for Gardisil and ads regarding HPV have been in extremely heavy play on TV in New York/New Jersey. *None* of the ads even mention that HPV is an STD. It's despicable.
Published: February 9, 2007 2:43 PM
I was actually going to post a blog entry on this program with Tucker Carlson's excellent commentary on it. Instead, I'll just give the text of it here.
"Last Friday, Republican governor Rick Perry issued an executive order requiring every sixth grade girl in Texas to be vaccinated against he Human Papillomavirus. HPV is sexually transmitted and it can cause cervical cancer. That‘s a disease that kills several hundred Texas women every year.
The vaccine is a genuine medical breakthrough, and some parents would be pleased to have their kids receive it. But should children be forced to get the vaccine? Put another way, does Governor Perry know more about what‘s best for kids than their own parents do?
Keep in mind that cervical cancer is not contagious. You cannot catch it from a classmate. Perry is using the power of the state to force a strictly preventive measure on children.
Once you decide to do that, why stop with HPV? Why not require every 12-year-old girl in the state to get a birth control injection. That would curb unwanted pregnancies.
No doubt, somewhere deep in the California legislature someone is working on a bill that would do just that. The Harvard Medical School and “The New York Times” editorial page will endorse it. It will probably become law. But before that happens, it is worth reminding autocrats like Rick Perry that even in 2007, governors are not god.
Knowing what‘s best doesn‘t give government the right to impose it. That‘s a right only parents have, thank god. "
Published: February 9, 2007 3:36 PM
There isn't even a law in Texas! It is just a Merck paid off governor arrogantly proclaiming that he knows more about how to make young women healthy than the women themselves and their parents.
We all know that laws supposedly come from legislatures. Recently courts have been competing for that job as well, all of it unconstitutional.
Executives DO NOT MAKE laws. It is up to courts and legislatures to take away any teeth in these proclamations.
Published: February 9, 2007 5:20 PM
There is no law in America, aside from those applying to medical workers, that says you or your child has to take any vaccine whatsoever, no matter what any executive order, requirement, mandate or policy dictates, there is no situation where you can go to prison for refusing a government vaccine under the U.S. constitution and the law of the land.
There's no law that requires you to pay income taxes, either - yet people go to jail for not paying.
There's no law (that is to say, legislation exists, but is unconstitutional and therefore void) preventing you from growing and smoking marijuana (or any other drug), either - yet most of the prison population is there for exactly that.
Published: February 9, 2007 5:21 PM
Mike P.,
The governor is not recommending, he is mandating. Here is the executive order in its entirety:
There is no reference to "recommend" in the actual mandate - which begins with "NOW THEREFORE, I RICK PERRY ..."
A WHEREAS is simply a statement to support the reasoning behind the action contained in the THEREFORE.
No law? Not directly, but the governor has the power to exclude from public schools students who aren't vaccinates. And, students who do not attend public schools must provide proof of another form of approved education, or, their parents are subject to legal action.
That's right. The blackboot are not kicking down the door, but they are being shined.
Published: February 9, 2007 6:00 PM
Ha! You think that's bad? Here in Australia there's a movement to vaccinate boys on the grounds that it would be good for girls' health - and never mind any risks to the boys. Mind you, they are already using similar arguments to justify the much more drastic deed of circumcising boys for the good of girls, but at least those aren't (yet) aiming to make it mandatory.
Published: February 9, 2007 10:48 PM
Mike N; Depending on your definition of a "law", you may indeed be technically correct, however for the vast majority of parents who have a large legal obligation to 'invest' in the public school system, Governor Perry's order has the effect of forcing parents to either comply, or leave their 'investment' stranded and take their kids out of public school. To state otherwise is disingenuous, at best.
Published: February 10, 2007 12:23 AM
Another reason why the problem is "Public School". Private schools do not seem to have these little issues nor do they worry much about governor mandates.
I find it even more amusing that this governor is a Republican. And Republicans wonder why they are losing elections in states with large independent/Liberterian/free-market oriented populations.
Published: February 10, 2007 8:24 AM
Having taken a page from the US Congress, our Texas legislature was last seen vigorously challenging Perry on this issue by...writing a law requiring girls to be vaccinated. We'll show him who gets to write laws by doing exactly what he wanted! Yea, we're tough.
Thus far, I have only had one person give an actual reason for supporting mandatory vaccination. Everyone else in favor of it apparently supports it because they oppose cancer. The one argument I heard in it's favor was that unvaccinated people get sick, wasting health resources the rest of us should get. I wonder if she supports mandatory gastric bypass, so as not to waste food resources which are, apparently, owned in common by all for all, except those who choose wrongly.
Published: February 11, 2007 8:18 PM
You know, now that I think about it, I really can only picure Perry doing two things about the vaccine:
1-Requiring it, out of a firm committment to the principles of corporate welfare.
2-Banning it, because girls shouldn't have sex.
I have trouble picturing him doing nothing about it.
We've gotten to the point that no one bats an eye over regulation, or over the absurd way this was done. Instead, for many, the discussion begins and ends with the virtues and flaws of the vaccine, the coercion being entirely ignored.
Published: February 11, 2007 8:32 PM
This thing well illustrates how the state can and does use its uniquely bully pulpit to blend coercion and deception of, by, and for the state and its supportive corporations. Which is it? Answer: both. It's highly profitable, it might help or harm public health, and it definitely reduces human rights - in this case, against both the state and its corporate allies.
Published: February 11, 2007 9:54 PM