"buried within the legislation is an unprecedented attack on the civil liberties of American Citizens"
A 1905 case before the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed:
A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
No. 70
Argued December 6, 1904
Decided February 20, 1905
197 U.S. 11
140 creating s. 381.00316, F.S.;
141 prohibiting a business entity from requiring patrons
142 or customers to provide documentation certifying
143 vaccination against or recovery from COVID-19;
144 prohibiting governmental entities from requiring
145 persons to provide documentation certifying
146 vaccination against or recovery from COVID-19;
147 prohibiting educational institutions from requiring
148 students or residents to provide documentation
149 certifying vaccination against or recovery from COVID
150 19;
208 (4) It is further the intent of the Legislature to minimize
209 the negative effects of an extended emergency, such as a
210 pandemic or another public health emergency. The Legislature
211 recognizes that there are significant negative impacts on
212 children and families associated with school closures during a
213 public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The
214 Legislature also recognizes the significant negative impacts of
215 such emergencies on the economy due to business closures.
216 (5) It is further the intent of the Legislature that all
217 aspects of emergency preparedness, response, and recovery be
218 made transparent to the public to the greatest extent possible.
The bill makes clear:
1056 (d) The State Health Officer, upon declaration of a public
1057 health emergency, may take actions that are necessary to protect
1058 the public health. Such actions include, but are not limited to:
1097 4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested,
1098 vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable
1099 diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and
1100 present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are
1101 unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or
1102 treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be
1103 subjected to isolation or quarantine.
1104 a. Examination, testing, vaccination, or treatment may be
1105 performed by any qualified person authorized by the State Health
1106 Officer.
1107 b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health,
1108 the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation
1109 or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or
1110 quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any
1111 means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.
Actually, what you listed in the section makes “the bill makes clear” wasn’t actually a part of the bill. It was a part of the already existing law that the bill was amending.
Referring to my reply 35:
1905 case before the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed:
A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Source:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/#opinions