Issue 7.15
Part 1
Can government force you to do something that you feel is wrong or destructive – in essence violating your conscience? The answer is yes. Should government do that? I believe the answer is NO. We as voters have the responsibility to understand the principles involved and to require of our elected officials that they hold the line so we are not faced with the wrenching decisions that come when government mandate and personal ideals come into conflict.
One of the areas of current concern in this regard is health care. There are positive things that can result from governmental involvement, but balancing those things with personal freedom and personal conscience requires a lot more than a knee-jerk reaction to perceived and even real injustice or danger.
For example, there are many voices asking for a requirement that all people be immunized against a variety of diseases, some of which are virulent and deadly and some of which are simply an inconvenience to most people. There are many who question whether some of these immunizations are effective and there is question as to whether immunizations in general create unintended consequences in some people, such as autism, multiple sclerosis and even the very diseases they are supposed to be preventing. It was proven that some vaccines which used mercury caused serious side effects in many, leading to reducing or eliminating mercury in vaccines over the last few years. There are many other examples of side effects that are devastating when using combinations or chemicals (such as thalidomide babies and the numerous lawsuits you see on TV being waged against this or that pharmaceutical company for providing “therapies” that are proven years later to create “unintended consequences” in people). While conclusive studies by truly independent third parties have yet to prove the links or lack thereof between the vaccines and conditions such as autism, there are many people that remain wary of routine vaccination and especially the flu vaccine for otherwise healthy people. When you add the fact that some vaccines seem to be encouraging mutations of diseases into more deadly or virulent forms, and you have a concern that can lead to informed people desiring to avoid routine vaccination on conscientious grounds.
No one is disputing that local governments can safeguard public health by asking for quarantine status if and when unvaccinated people are exposed to deadly diseases such as ebola and even measles (as is currently in the news). However, until and unless it can be conclusively proven that vaccinations are completely safe and effective, government has no right to require it of all individuals, regardless of religion, conscience or scientific understanding of the facts. This mind-set (governmental control of individual health care decisions) is an outgrowth of governmental thinking that they can require health insurance of all people, even those who never use the government-authorized health care providers and, instead, opt for alternative or nutritional medicine and forego chemical or invasive medicine as currently practiced by many approved providers.
On a Constitutional basis, the Federal Government has no authority in the health care arena outside of regulating interstate commerce which can include regulating insurance companies that work in multiple states, stopping people suspected of being infectious from travelling on public transit, etc. Requiring individuals to purchase specific types of insurance or to be inoculated against their conscientious objections is an abuse of government power and our representatives should be strongly encouraged to reject such ideas.
Lynn West is a thinker, a teacher and a patriot. You can reach him through email at forgingthefuture2021@gmail.com or through this newspaper. Liberty is a state of being which must be continually created. These articles can help all of us discover the ways we can contribute to that outcome.