What's Wrong with Religious Exemption?
Trigger warning:
Part I:
My article below challenges the prevalent assumption that the state may mandate vaccination. I am NOT anti-vax, but just anti-coercion and pro-bodily-autonomy. If you find this view offensive or disturbing and would like to continue living in blissful ignorance while the very underpinnings of free society are under attack, then please don't read this:
What's Wrong with Religious "Exemption?"
Mandatory Vaccination and the Nuremburg Code
Part I:
There's something deeply troubling about the whole debate over "religious exemption" from mandatory vaccination.
It avoids the real elephant in the
room.
Who granted the government the authority
to mandate vaccination in the first place?
What happened to bodily autonomy?
Some point to the fact that the
state doesn’t coerce anyone to vaccinate, and as such, doesn’t technically
violate anyone’s autonomy.
Of course, this is a specious
argument. Mandatory vaccination effectively bars a child from school. Depriving
a child of an education is coercive. Education is a right, not a privilege.
For a working single mother, homeschooling
is simply not an option. For many couples who both work, staying home to
homeschool children condemns their family to indigence. This “non-compulsory” law
forces them to choose between vaccination and poverty.
How can free society tolerate such
cruel and intolerant policy?
Some folks argue that personal
freedoms must be restricted (read: violated) when there's a public safety risk.
Their reasoning: measles can be
deadly, and an unvaccinated child is at greater risk to contracting the dreaded
disease and spreading it further to others. Since this child arguably poses a
risk to the community, they argue, he may be barred from the public whose
safety we are trying to safeguard.
The problem is that infringing in
individual’s rights in the name of public welfare is risky business. We’re
treading on thin ice, constitutionally-speaking.
Let’s first assess the actual risk
that this one child poses. She is presently healthy, indistinguishable from a
vaccinated child. The fear is that there is a higher statistical possibility
that she may contract an infectious disease.
This reasoning might also lead us to
conclude that children from ethnicities who have higher incidents of juvenile
delinquency may be barred from society too. After all, a student from such
ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds surely increases the statistical risk for
school violence.
Muslim children may be barred from
schools too, since they are certainly at higher risk of radicalization and
jihadism.
Where do we draw the line?
Is the threat of measles more lethal
than that of school shootings or suicide bombings?
Nevertheless, irrational fear of
disease seems to provide excuse to curtail individual freedoms more so than
other security or safety concerns.
The loudest voices in our society
justify the banning of the unvaccinated due to public safety risk.
Public health outweighs an
individual’s rights, they argue.
I'd assume these same people
enthusiastically support the NSA recording our conversations and so-called concentration
camps at the border, both of which supposedly exist to protect the public.
However, that's not the case. These
same outspoken proponents of mandatory vaccination are oddly silent when it
comes to the state suspending other civil liberties.
Instead, they often protest these government
abuses, yet nod in approval when unvaccinated children are barred from
school.
[Even more inexplicably, they'll
clamor for the rights of unvaccinated migrants (and their unimpeded integration
into American society) yet advocate sequestering unvaccinated children of U.S.
citizens.]
So I ask them: why do you believe
individuals are any less entitled to medical freedom than they are freedom of
mobility, speech, or expression?
You'll fight for a woman's right to
wear hijabs, in spite of conceivable possibility that she's hiding a weapon
underneath, but have no qualms forcing her to submit to bodily injection in the
name of preventing potential harm to the public!
You deplore "apartheid”
policies that exclude Arabs from crossing a border to mitigate security risks,
but cheer when unvaccinated children are shunned from the public, banned from
school, treated like pariahs and untouchables... all because they supposedly
pose a public health risk!
I’ll be the simple son and ask the
obvious question: why is this apartheid different from all other apartheids?
When NYC fines people for not complying
with mandatory MMR, you cite increased risk of measles from unvaccinated
population. Yet you'd deplore racial profiling or biased attitude
towards any minority group, even if there were indeed increased risk of violent offenders
coming from that particular minority population.
You have zero tolerance for bias
against LGBTQ people but plenty of tolerance for bias against unvaccinated
people.
You’ll champion a woman's inviolable
right to consent yet turn a blind eye when teen-age girls are penetrated with
an intravenous needle under duress! Poked and force-injected with someone
else's bodily fluid (i.e. that of aborted babies, not to mention monkeys and
other mammals)!
You’ll stand up for a woman’s choice
to kill her 9-month-old fetus but reject her choice to decline the Hepatitis-B
vaccine for that same baby one day later!
Why the double standards?
Why are you okay with infringing on
individual's civil liberties only with regards to vaccines?
Who gave the state exclusive rights
to our bloodstreams!?
It’s irrelevant that there’s a
vaccinating majority. Since when do we condone dictatorship of the
majority?
We simply cannot tolerate such
egregious violations of individual citizens’ rights. There's too much at stake.
Bodily autonomy is sacrosanct. An
individual's right to medical choice is inviolable.
This is the USA, land of the free!
Not only may we not force-vaccinate
anyone, neither may we ostracize them for not being vaccinated.
That’s Jim Crow laws revisited.
We may not bar
children from schools. It's no different than barring African Americans from schools for
phony excuse of "keeping the neighborhood safe."
Unvaccinated children are just as
human as your own, and they are entitled to an education!
A school that will not accommodate all
healthy children should not be allowed to accommodate any
children.
There can be no tolerance for such
discriminatory policies in free society.
So that brings me back to my problem
with "religious exemption."
Why does anyone need an
"exemption" in the first place?
Any person should be fully entitled
to decline ANY medical procedure, no questions asked.
The state may enforce seatbelts,
motor-vehicle or aviation safety, consumer protection, etc., but they may not
force-medicate healthy individuals. That’s a red line that must never
be crossed.
Part II:
Years ago, while we weren't paying
attention, the government insidiously usurped our freedoms by enforcing
mandatory vaccination policy, while tossing us a conciliatory doggy bone,
so-called "religious exemption." That enabled individuals to decline,
but for specifically-religious reasons only.
Shockingly, “non-religious”
individuals were never afforded such a “privilege.” Moreover, an individual
could only cite uniquely-religious reasons, and was often harassed by his own
coreligionists who disputed his right to his own religious beliefs!
Fast-forward to the present. Now we
have an outrageous situation in which self-proclaimed religious experts
ridiculously profess expertise on every known religion on earth.
These so-called spiritual leaders claim that there are no valid religious
reasons for declining vaccination ever.
New York state legislators were only
too eager to follow suit and eliminated religious exemption altogether, banning
some 35,000+ children from school in one fell swoop.
What is the reaction from the
freedom-loving people of New York State?
Silence, complacence, and
indifference.
Shameful, appalling and deplorable.
Truth is, however, that the
population has been unsuspectingly indoctrinated over the course of many years,
ever since mandatory vaccination was introduced, even throughout the time that
religious exemption had been honored.
Zealous efforts to ensure “herd
immunity” have led to “herd thinking.” No one is permitted to question the
state-imposed vaccination paradigm. My goodness, independent thinking is viewed
as a “public health risk” and suppressed! Anyone who questions the state’s
mandate to vaccinate the population is roundly tarred and feathered in the name
of “protecting public health.”
Despite their best of intentions,
the champions of “public health” have sadly trampled our First Amendment rights
in the process.
My friends, it’s time to take back
the narrative and reclaim our autonomy.
Your body belongs to you and you
alone. No one may dictate what you inject into yourself.
Doctors may encourage vaccination,
and surely you ought to consider their advice and possibly comply, but that is
YOUR decision and no one else’s.
Yes, it’s possible that if the unvaccinated
population increases, some diseases might return.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing we
can do about that, short of vaccinating ourselves and your children.
We may NOT vaccinate other people’s
children.
If we allow that, then we are no
longer a free country, but a police state.
We will have lost everything.
As Patrick Henry famously cried,
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
Is measles worse than death?
(Parenthetically, has there been
even one death in the recent measles outbreak in the US? 1,203 cases so far
this year, but not a single fatality. Please remind me why measles is so
dreaded...)
I’d rather deal with measles than
with a dystopian police state, the risk we take if we don’t stymie the
government’s efforts to restrict our free choice and bodily autonomy.
Let’s review the opening lines of
the Nuremburg Code:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely
essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal
capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free
power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud,
deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or
coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the
elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an
understanding and enlightened decision.
Vaccination ought to be a matter of
“enlightened decision,” not a “forced” decision made “under duress” by
“overreaching” government. Barring children from school amounts to coercion and
cannot be tolerated.
Let’s all wake up now before it’s
too late.
Yes, religious freedom is under
attack in the Empire State and throughout the country.
Under the law, religion is defined
as “personal, strongly held beliefs,” not necessarily related to organized
religion.
It’s no coincidence that our
founding fathers enshrined it in the very first amendment.
When government attempts to tamper
with it, all freedom is lost. It is the beginning and end to our cherished
liberties, and we cannot afford to lose it.
We already began to forfeit our
freedoms when we tolerated state-imposed mandatory vaccine schedule.
Religious freedom is our last stand,
so to say.
It’s time for every freedom-loving
citizen to stand up to defend it, irrespective of one’s opinions on vaccines.
This is not about vaccines. It’s
about preserving the essence of who we are as a nation.
G-d bless America, and G-d bless our
freedoms.