After World War II the allies put Nazi war criminals on trial. Those who did medical experiments without consent on the Jews were put to death. Even the typists at the camps were prosecuted. Anyone who took even the smallest role was put to trial.
This is why medical ethics are so clear about medical informed consent and why the Supreme Court has upheld conscientious objections to various medical procedures such as vaccines.
Some cite as an exception is the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v Massachusetts where the state mandated that people get the smallpox vaccine or pay a fine of five dollars.
The warnings and clear limits put into the language of Jacobson have been largely ignored by politicized judges.
The first warning appears below, that this power of state to enforce a medical mandate is extremely limited and may not violate the Constitution (such as religious objections), and cannot be arbitrary and oppressive.
[Editor’s Note: Strict Scrutiny and most 14th Amendment case law did not exist at the time of Jacobson.]
While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed, or not exercised in such an arbitrary and oppressive manner as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.
Politicized judges went off the deep end in citing Jacobson as a precedent. In Buck v Bell (1927) the court ruled that the government can force involuntary sterilization on those the state declared to be imbeciles. In Korematsu v United States (1944) the court cited Jacobson as precedent in order to justify Japanese internment.
Keep in mind that Jacobson came long before the Nuremberg Trials. Smallpox killed a third of anyone who contracted the disease. The vaccine for it had been tested over many years and proved safe. Treatments for smallpox were not very effective by today’s standards. The CCP virus has a mortality rate of just over 1% which continues to drop as treatments improve.
In 1905 there was no National Institute of Health, no CDC, no massive medical research being done at most universities, charities, advanced pharmaceuticals, etc. In 1905 communicable disease was the number one cause of death. Today there is no need for such draconian mandates as medical treatments for most any ailment are plentiful and diverse. Even the National Institute of Health has published peer reviewed papers saying that rulings like Jacobson are completely unnecessary and violate people’s liberty.
It is for the clear abuses and more that these interpretations of Jacobson v Massachusetts have been considered archaic and fail rationality by today’s standards. No judge or can cite them as honest precedent. Only someone with an agenda would dare.
Here is the stinger. In Jacobson the Supreme Court points out that neither side claimed that the smallpox vaccination could “seriously impair his health” as the vaccine is extraordinarily safe. The Covid vaccinations enjoy no such luxury. The CDC VAERS Database shows thousands of deaths after receiving the poke, many due to myocarditis.
The court also recognized an exemption for those who are not a “fit subject of vaccination” which included medical exemptions. Meaning that your physician can exempt you and/or one can have natural immunity from already contracting the virus and surviving. Anyone who is naturally immune is clearly not a “fit subject of vaccination.”
The question is, will the higher court judges obey the law or play “politics and agendas.”
In the meantime, Texas has acted:
Famed trial attorney Robert Barnes on Jacobson: