Article 6 – Consent
I and thousands of other Federal Employees are under the gun, here, so this sort of case is smack in my crosshairs.
It is my preliminary opinion that SCOTUS erred in suborning the Free Exercise Clause in Jacobson; the elemental human right of freedom of religion is, perhaps, THE DOMINANT THREAD in the story of how people of faith got from William Tyndale to a Bill of Rights, and derogation is all but absolutely forbidden. Exceptions include compelling State interest in consideration of the public health, but are to be interpreted restrictively, which Jacobsen DOES NOT.
A restrictive interpretation would permit derogation in consideration of the public health for a terrifying emergency like smallpox, which kills 30% across all demographics. The widespread, crippling threat of Polio would also pass the bar of restrictive interpretation. But measles, mumps, the flu, even COVID...? No. The bar simply cannot be set that low and retain the meaning of "interpreted restrictively."
Worse, there were no aborted fetal cell lines being used in vaccine development or testing in 1905, so adherents to religions that regard the unborn as living, individual human persons did not face that full-stop religious objection to the Court's denial of religious exemption under Jacobsen. This is absolutely NOT SO, anymore, and there is no injection presently available for COVIDV that does not have a connection to abortion. A few are in development, but that's a ship arriving to late to save a drowning witch.
At this hour, the denial of any religious exemption citing Jacobsen -- if the medical treatment in view involves medicines developed, manufactured, formulated, or tested using cell lines originating from aborted fetal tissue -- immediately discriminated against the protected right to Free Exercise, and this condition must force Supreme Court review.
To my mind, the Supreme Court needs to hear a case clearly aimed at the overbroad permission of vaccine mandates generally under Jacobsen without also requiring a route to religious exemption. In an age where any next drug can arise from the graves of the unborn, religious objectors must have access to exemption for their right of Free Exercise to be preserved to them whole, and Jacobson, as presently construed, admits to no such thing.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. This is just a current project of mine against the backdrop of present-day realities. Click on my screen name to take a look at my profile and see more of what I'm working on.
“...are to be interpreted restrictively, which Jacobsen DOES NOT.”
I should have added, at this point, “...because the decision was not narrowly applied to vaccination for smallpox.”
As I later clarify, “interpreted restrictively” is permissive only in extremity. Smallpox kills 30% of its victims across all demographics. An outbreak that affected all Americans would claim 100 million lives. THAT is an extremity wherein the State has a compelling interest of sufficient magnitude that otherwise non-derogable human rights could be credibly impinged upon.
COVID is NOWHERE NEAR that; “extremity” is a distant speck in regard to COVID worldwide. So all national convulsions remain hideously rights-infringing oligarchical antics propagated by fear, and platformed upon raw lust for power.