Students need to get jabbed.
IU and the rest of us win in court
- Thread starter Courtsensetwo
- Start date
Correct. they have the choice to stay home
They can choose to take their bodies elsewhere, right?
They’re free to do what they want, you can go elsewhere, make you a deal, Outlaw abortions and the rest of us will get the Jab!
But not the hardbodies amirite?
I honestly needed them there to distract the good looking dudes and leave the 3-7's for the rest of us.
Last edited:
Can some mod merge the thread I started with this one? Even though this thread hasn't yet gotten on track, I still would appreciate some discussion of the legal implications...
FYI it's the "IU forum" thread...
While I would generally agree with you, this falls in the same category seat-belts are in. The evidence is dramatically in favor of forcing a small loss of liberty.
Let's reduce all speed limits to 5 mph since a few people don't/won't wear seat belts.
It becomes your business when you end up in close quarters with people infected with variants. PU is not requiring jabs and packing four people into two man dorm rooms.
Not at all. Forced invasive medications are entirely different from seatbelts. The test for forcing a medication is usually to prevent danger to oneself or others. In this case, the student body is low risk and if a student is vaccinated, the young person has a very very low risk of infection. When a student is vaccinated, forcing the kid in the next desk to be also vaccinated doesn’t change the risk much at all.
The judge gave great deference to IU on this decision and thereby avoided any discussion of a least restrictive policy. He avoided a detailed discussion of the wisdom of the decision.
To make you happy Court, you can just blame Ordfan for the pandemic! Since he lives rent free in your head.
Good for him. Not every case is about high minded shit like rights vs. oppression, liberty vs. tyranny. Sometimes it's about boring shit like public policy.
Let us face it, compulsory vaccination is a difficult policy issue, requiring authorities to balance public health with individual liberty:
in my opinion this difficult issue will not be decided as a consequence of Covid in our great country, either now or ever.
In the meantime, just another issue which divides us.
Good. I’ll look forward to a discussion about a rubber mandate to stop STD’s.
It is. Especially when the vaccine is still dispensed under emergency authorization and we don’t know if the immunity is permanent. Should institutions start mandatory flu shots?
You can’t compare STD’s to a contagion. Completely different in so many ways, especially transmission.
Exactly. I was responding to a post suggesting that the liberty interest in the constitution is subordinate to PUBLIC POLICY! The ramifications of that kind of thinking should be of concern to all of us. But for those who like a patronizing government probably don’t understand and wouldn’t care anyway.
We’ve all submitted to forced invasive medications already, assuming we graduated from IU or other academic institution.
I don’t know about you but I’ve found Covid - 19 to have a pretty negative affect on society. If we are required vaccines for polio, tetnis, MMR, etc… I’m gonna take one for the team and add a new one to the list
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
COH, do you think your opinion would change if the death rate for the virus were higher among the general populace or the college age group?
Yes.
These questions should always be resolved by balancing competing principles. High death rates tips the scales.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
So the next question is: who should make that call? And in reviewing it, if its reviewable, what deference do you give the decision maker?
In public health crises, I don't think the courts are well positioned to make these calls. That said, I'm not sure at this point we are in crisis mode. (Richard Epstein made this point in on a Law Talk podcast in December, I think. I bet you might like that, if you like podcasts.)
I think the courts must make the call about when constitutional rights yield to the pubic interest. Individuals have (with rare exceptions) a right to refuse medical treatment, and the public institutions have the authority to impose reasonable requirements for public health and safety. Where the scales tip one way or the other is a mixed question of law and fact to be decided on a case by case basis. As you noted, the existence of a crisis or emergency also plays a role. The only thing we know for sure is that there are no bright lines here.
If a private institution required all students to be vaccinated, we wouldn't have this discussion. The fact that IU is government makes a difference. I also think there is a difference between students and employed staff and faculty, but in my brief review of he 105 page opinion i didn't notice that the court discussed that.
