[Hodar]

Forcing one to use a drug is not freedom. She has every right to refuse that drug.

Then change the law. You seem to think that if you don't like a law, you can ignore the law. Then you will scream about illegal aliens and Obama and his birth certificate.

Be consistent. I did not say this law was good, nor bad; however this IS THE LAW. I am in favor of enforcing our laws, I am not in favor of picking and choosing which laws you want to follow.

[originalbuckeye]

I am for enforcing the law, too. this is BAD LAW. I wonder if any other countries force their immigrants to have this unproven vaccine.

[LearsFool]

You seem to think that if you don't like a law, you can ignore the law.

You seem to think that a law ought to be obeyed whether it destroys liberty or not.

[hoosierham]

I am in favoring of ignoring unconstitutional laws at every opportunity;nor do I think the Constitution requires a group of senile,robed lawyers to interpret.The Second Amendment is quite clear,for instance.But those who wish to impose their restrictions upon free people always insist the words of the Constitution need interpretation by their expert.

[SamuraiScot]

You seem to think that if you don't like a law, you can ignore the law. Then you will scream about illegal aliens and Obama and his birth certificate.

As Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine said, an unjust law is not a law. Protecting our borders is just law. Requiring proof that one is a natural-born citizen to serve as President is just law. Paying off political contributors by requiring that citizens or residents use their product is not just law. Nor (for another example) is abortion on demand. There is no divorcing law from morality; law has no purpose other than to serve morality.

Unjust laws are inconsistent with law itself, and render a legal system self-contradictory. Not only are people who defy unjust laws not doing wrong, they are improving the system by targeting its faulty parts for elimination.

Here is Aquinas:

"Laws are unjust in two ways: First, they may be such because they oppose human good. . . This can occur because of their end, when a ruler imposes burdens with an eye, not to the common good, but to his own enrichment or glory; because of their author, when someone imposes laws beyond the scope of his authority; or because of their form, when burdens are inequitably distributed, even if they are ordered to the common good. Such decrees are not so much laws as acts of violence, because, as Augustine says, 'An unjust law does not seem to be a law at all.' Such laws do not bind the conscience, except perhaps to avoid scandal or disturbance. . .

"[L]aws may be unjust because they are opposed to the divine good, as when the laws of tyrants lead men to idolatry or to something else contrary to divine law. Such laws must never be observed, because 'one must obey God rather than men.' (Acts 5:29)." (Summa 96:6)