I'm sure this won't foster distrust in the system, as people try to argue why they can't be fired for not being vaccinated as they are actively walked out.
Less sarcastically, undermining people's faith in the system and their ability to keep up with what's legal, what's not, and who's actually making the rules seems likely to dig America deeper into the divide that's been happening for many years now.
2) The previous vaccines had much longer development, and years of safety testing.
3) The previous vaccines have far fewer VAERS reports for side effects.
4) Previous vaccines have longer lasting immunity and do not require frequent booster shots
Read the opinion. It clearly defers the question of "whether vaccination is or is not the best mode" to legislatures and not to the courts. Based on that precedent, there is no "is this disease severe enough" test a court could apply.
(There are the open questions as to whether Jacobson applies to states, and not the U.S. government, and whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act confers these powers to the President. But the commentary on this is dry and one sided.)
> previous vaccines had much longer development, and years of safety testing
Jacobson was decided in 1905. The Food and Drug Administration was formed in 1906 [1].
> previous vaccines have far fewer VAERS reports for side effects
VAERS succeeds Jacobson by over 80 years [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reportin...
Than its obviously a junk opinion, unless you want to live in a medical apartheid state. Are you seriously suggesting because of this opinion the government has the right to put anything in your body they want, for no matter how low the threshold risk. You want to live under such laws?
I'll ask you a second question. Hypothetically, do you think the government has a right to kill 1% of the people to save a another preferred 1% of the people? Would it matter if it was 2%?
No, I don't, and neither is that what Jacobson or the Occupational Safety and Health Act say.
"There was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on any person," just a monetary penalty [1]. It relied on "the opinion of the Board of Health" finding it was "necessary for the public health or the public safety" to mandate the vaccine. It evaluated how the Board of Health made that decision, and found it was "qualified to make that judgment" and "did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner."
In short, a fact specific, scoped and expert-guided standard that "would probably be upheld as long as (1) the disease still exists in the population where it can spread and cause serious injury to those infected, and (2) a safe and effective vaccine could prevent transmission to others."
VivaFrei podcast has recently claimed that the Jacobson decision was the sole basis for the Buck v Bell decision, which instituted the eugenics program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
It's political theatre. Federal rules mandating vaccines among employers with more than 100 employees are going into effect [1]. And the Constitutionality of vaccine mandates was settled when Kaiser Wilhelm was King of Prussia [2]. That federal law supersedes this ban.
The Governor knows that. The Texas elite know that. Texan employers know that. A vocal minority of voters for whom this has become their single issue do not know that. If this keeps them happy, it's a win-win.
[1] https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2021/09/prepa...
[2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/