A professor who has invented vaccines wants the civil government to outlaw all religious exemptions from laws mandating vaccinations of children. He writes:
I also would argue that it does not make sense to say, “It is my religious belief that a child not get a vaccine,” and therefore a child should be left with less protection under the law. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, the so-called Equal Protection Clause, states that a child or anyone should be equally protected and implies that this is independent of a parent’s belief system. If the child is exposed to harm, that child should have equal protection. For example, if a Jehovah’s Witness parent says, “I do not want my child to get a lifesaving blood transfusion,” the parent does not have the freedom of religion to practice that because of the 14th Amendment.
What is interesting — and I do not think most people know this — is
that the 2 states that do not have religious exemptions are Mississippi and West Virginia, states you would not necessarily pick. The reason these states do not have a religious exemption is because both states’ Supreme Courts said that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
I think we should call these exemptions what they really are. Let’s not sugarcoat this choice. We should call them the “I do not want to get vaccines because I have read a lot of scary things about vaccines and I am afraid that they might hurt my child, and I am not so sure I believe in pharmaceutical companies or the medical establishment or the government, so I do not want my child to get them” vaccine exemption. That would be, I think, more honest.
When inventors see a way to for inventors in general to make more money by forcing people to buy their products, they find ways to get the state involved. The most successful way to get the state involved is to call for coercion in the name of the children.
As he says, let’s not sugarcoat it. Here is what this guy is really saying.
“I want mandatory vaccines because I have read a lot of scary things about free market competition, and I am afraid that this might hurt income derived from patents. I am not so sure I believe in persuasion as a substitute for compulsion for the medical establishment or the government, so I do not want inventions to rely exclusively on persuasion.”