This is the case that Pro Vaccine Choice people need to contend with to avoid any mandatory vaccine law that I anticipate will occur throughout the country.
There is a little wiggle room to avoid being forced to have the Covid shot, which is 1) a medical exemption, and 2) that the Covid Vaccine is not the best way to cure or prevent Covid. The court does not go into detail as what qualifies as a medical exemption because Jacobsen did not declare any medical conditions that would prevent him from getting the shot. The court found him “a fit subject of vaccination”. What does this “a fit subject of vaccination” mean? You could arguably list a whole series of allergic reactions to vaccine contents. We do not yet know what the Covid vaccine will contain, but it appears it will contain aborted fetal cells. See here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/abortion-opponents-protest-covid-19-vaccines-use-fetal-cells
The second arguable area is that the court ruled mandatory vaccination permissible because the the small pox vaccine was “an effective if not the best known way in which to meet and suppress the evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperilled an entire population.” So we have to ask ourselves then, is the Covid vaccine “the best known way in which to meet and suppress the evils of” Covid-19? Arguably no! We already have a plethora of evidence that Hydroxychloroquine and zinc (“HCQ”) can “meet and suppress the evils of” covid. Why did the FDA ban hydroxychloroquine….I believe it is because of this particular sentence in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where you could arguably say that HCQ has a better cure rate than the Covid vaccine. See this video of board-certified doctors confirming HCQ works: https://www.brighteon.com/3571f9ae-ec43-4254-8a56-1a931c250888.
Plus you have evidence coming out of Wuhan that a covid vaccine is not necessary to beat Covid-19, thus a mandatory vaccine is unnecessary. See Wuhan Pool Party here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRuCv0yxpaA
It is so important for our future freedom as the clouds of tyranny continue to collect on the horizon that we open our eyes and take action to spread the word that Wuhan has beaten covid without a vaccine, and we need to get the word out about HCQ and ask questions as to how Wuhan beat covid without a vaccine. Did they Wuhanites use HCQ? Did they use intravenous vitamin C? Did they use green tea? Did they use quercetin? Did they use glutathione? Did they use vitamin D? Did they use Azithromycin? Did they use colloidal silver? What did they use that made them successful? You would think people would be falling over each other scrambling to find out how Wuhan succeeded. Curiously the world seems silent. Whether you hate China or not, knowing how Wuhan beat covid without a vaccine will prove critical to your medical freedom in the United States. We are all connected.
Furthermore, If Wuhan and China have beaten Covid-19 already without a vaccine, Covid-19 is no longer an “epidemic” for purposes of mandating vaccines for the general public.
Perhaps as a last thought, is we have to inquire as to whether private individuals can sue the FDA for blocking access to HCQ. It is very important to get HCQ back on the market first because it will save lives that are needlessly dying because the FDA has blocked it. Second because when we have more evidence that it works, there is less incentive for a vaccine, especially one that is hastily rushed to market for election purposes. And third, I know of no Supreme Court case that has ruled in favor of mandatory forced medication.
You can find the full case here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16169198038706839183&q=jacobson+v+massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33
“These offers, in effect, invited the court and jury to go over the whole ground gone over by the legislature when it enacted the statute in question. The legislature assumed that some children, by reason of their condition at the time, might not be fit subjects of vaccination; and it is suggested — and we will not say without reason — that such is the case with some adults. But the defendant did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was in fact not a fit subject of vaccination 37*37 at the time he was informed of the requirement of the regulation adopted by the Board of Health. It is entirely consistent with his offer of proof that, after reaching full age he had become, so far as medical skill could discover, and when informed of the regulation of the Board of Health was, a fit subject of vaccination, and that the vaccine matter to be used in his case was such as any medical practitioner of good standing would regard as proper to be used. The matured opinions of medical men everywhere, and the experience of mankind, as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe. Was defendant exempted from the operation of the statute simply because of his dread of the same evil results experienced by him when a child and had observed in the cases of his son and other children? Could he reasonably claim such an exemption because “quite often” or “occasionally” injury had resulted from vaccination, or because it was impossible, in the opinion of some, by any practical test, to determine with absolute certainty whether a particular person could be safely vaccinated?
It seems to the court that an affirmative answer to these questions would practically strip the legislative department of its function to care for the public health and the public safety when endangered by epidemics of disease. Such an answer would mean that compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox, and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and of its medical advisers, that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.”