Reminder, these AI&I exercises serve as basic learning experiences for me, and hopefully for you, which is why I post them “as is” with my questions included instead of acting like a cheating-influencer. That said, in the interest of full disclosure, I am antivax from a RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE perspective (i.e. the school of thought called: I am free to believe whatever the fuck I want and there is nothing you can do about it). I believe the words PUBLIC HEALTH and GREATER GOOD are devil spells incanted to make you forget who you are: an INDIVIDUAL, free to do whatever YOU want with YOUR BODY but YOU are solely responsible for those choices.
Read more about my stances on X (and throw me a follow, please and thank you!): Psst: There Is No Such Thing As “Public Health” and Imagine Calling Your Friend “Non-Essential”.
Now, herewith, some case law surrounding vaccinations, bodily autonomy, right of conscience, and how the government has slowly over the past 150 years, claimed they own your body, and no one, but a select few of us, seem to know or care.
List and summarize the facts and conclusions all US supreme court cases that deal with the subject of “right of conscience”
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The “right of conscience” refers to an individual’s freedom to hold personal beliefs and act according to them, particularly in matters of religion and moral conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed this right in several landmark cases:
- Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940):
- Facts: Newton Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness, was arrested for soliciting without a license and inciting a breach of the peace while proselytizing in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood.
- Conclusion: The Court held that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It ruled that requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes was unconstitutional, as it allowed the state to determine what constitutes a religious cause, thereby infringing on religious freedom. Wikipedia
- United States v. Seeger (1965):
- Facts: Daniel Seeger sought exemption from military service as a conscientious objector, citing a personal belief in a Supreme Being but not adhering to traditional religious doctrines.
- Conclusion: The Court broadened the interpretation of “religious training and belief” under the Universal Military Training and Service Act to include sincere and meaningful beliefs that occupy a place in the life of the possessor parallel to that filled by God, even if not based on traditional religious concepts. Supreme Court of the United States
- Gillette v. United States (1971):
- Facts: Guy Gillette opposed participation in the Vietnam War on moral grounds but was not opposed to all wars. He sought conscientious objector status to avoid the draft.
- Conclusion: The Court ruled that conscientious objector status under the Selective Service Act applies only to those who oppose participation in all wars, not just specific conflicts. First Amendment Center
- United States v. Lee (1982):
- Facts: An Amish employer objected to paying Social Security taxes on religious grounds, arguing that participation in governmental support systems violated his faith.
- Conclusion: The Court held that while the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, it does not exempt individuals from compliance with valid, neutral laws of general applicability, such as the payment of Social Security taxes. Wikipedia
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014):
- Facts: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a closely held for-profit corporation, objected on religious grounds to providing certain contraceptives mandated by the Affordable Care Act.
- Conclusion: The Court ruled that closely held corporations could be exempt from regulations that violate their owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs if there is a less restrictive means of achieving the regulation’s goal, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Wikipedia
- Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022):
- Facts: A high school football coach was suspended for praying on the field after games, which the school district argued violated the Establishment Clause.
- Conclusion: The Court held that the coach’s prayer was a form of private speech protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, and that the school district’s actions were not justified by concerns over violating the Establishment Clause. Wikipedia
These cases collectively underscore the Supreme Court’s role in delineating the boundaries between individual rights of conscience and governmental interests, balancing personal freedoms with societal obligations.
You said:
Please find me the cases that predate 1940
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Prior to 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the “right of conscience”—the freedom to hold personal beliefs and act according to them, especially in religious contexts—in several notable cases:
- Reynolds v. United States (1879):
- Facts: George Reynolds, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was convicted of bigamy under federal law. He argued that his religious duty to practice polygamy should exempt him from the law.
- Conclusion: The Court held that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, religious practices that are judged to be criminal (such as bigamy) are not. This case established the principle that the government can regulate actions, even if they are religiously motivated, if they violate social duties or subvert good order. Wikipedia
- Davis v. Beason (1890):
- Facts: Samuel D. Davis was convicted under an Idaho law that required voters to swear they were not members of any organization that practiced polygamy. Davis, a member of the LDS Church, challenged the law, claiming it infringed upon his religious rights.
- Conclusion: The Court upheld the law, stating that polygamy was “a crime by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries,” and that religious practices that violate social duties or subvert good order are not protected by the First Amendment.
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905):
- Facts: Henning Jacobson refused mandatory smallpox vaccination, citing personal health concerns and his right to care for his own body.
- Conclusion: The Court upheld the state’s authority to mandate vaccinations, asserting that individual liberties may be overridden when necessary to protect public health and safety.
- Selective Draft Law Cases (1918):
- Facts: Several individuals challenged the constitutionality of the Selective Service Act of 1917, arguing that compulsory military service violated their rights, including religious objections to war.
- Conclusion: The Court unanimously upheld the draft, stating that the government’s authority to raise and support armies was paramount, and that individual objections, even on religious grounds, did not exempt one from military service. Wikipedia
These cases illustrate the Court’s early efforts to balance individual rights of conscience with societal interests and legal obligations.
You said:
In the case of Jacobson, please provide the decision verbatim
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
In the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. Justice John Marshall Harlan, delivering the opinion of the Court, stated:
“The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.”
The Court concluded that:
“Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”
Therefore, the Court held that the Massachusetts law mandating smallpox vaccination was a legitimate exercise of the state’s police power to protect public health and safety.
Supreme Court of the United States
You said:
Find the top 20 most cited US cases relating to vaccinations
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The following are some of the most frequently cited U.S. court cases related to vaccination laws and mandates:
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905): The Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws, establishing a precedent for public health interventions.
- Zucht v. King (1922): The Court ruled that school systems could constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students, reinforcing the principle that individual rights may be subordinated to public health needs.
- Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): This case affirmed that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children, including mandating vaccinations, even when such regulations conflict with parental religious beliefs.
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC (2011): The Supreme Court held that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by vaccine side effects.
- Phillips v. City of New York (2nd Cir. 2015): The Second Circuit upheld New York’s mandatory vaccination requirements for schoolchildren, stating that religious exemptions are not constitutionally required.
- Workman v. Mingo County Board of Education (4th Cir. 2011): The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging West Virginia’s mandatory vaccination law, holding that the state’s interest in preventing disease outweighed individual religious objections.
- Caviezel v. Great Neck Public Schools (2nd Cir. 2012): The court upheld the denial of a religious exemption to mandatory vaccination, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sincere religious belief opposing vaccination.
- F.F. v. State of New York (N.Y. App. Div. 2019): The court upheld the state’s repeal of religious exemptions to vaccination requirements, emphasizing the state’s interest in protecting public health.
- Doe v. San Diego Unified School District (9th Cir. 2021): The Ninth Circuit denied an emergency injunction against a school district’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, finding that the mandate was likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
- Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University (7th Cir. 2021): The Seventh Circuit upheld the university’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement for students, citing the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
- Whitlow v. California Department of Education (S.D. Cal. 2016): The court upheld California’s elimination of personal belief exemptions to vaccination requirements for schoolchildren.
- Nikolao v. Lyon (6th Cir. 2018): The Sixth Circuit dismissed a challenge to Michigan’s vaccination waiver procedure, finding no violation of the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
- Brown v. Smith (Cal. Ct. App. 2018): The California Court of Appeal upheld the state’s elimination of personal belief exemptions to vaccination requirements, affirming the state’s authority to mandate vaccinations for school attendance.
- W.D. v. Rockland County (S.D.N.Y. 2019): The court upheld a county’s emergency declaration barring unvaccinated children from public places during a measles outbreak.
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York (2020): While primarily a Second Amendment case, the Court referenced Jacobson v. Massachusetts in discussing the balance between individual rights and public safety.
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020): The Court cited Jacobson in upholding California’s restrictions on religious gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020): The Court distinguished Jacobson in striking down New York’s restrictions on religious services during the pandemic.
- Does v. Mills (2021): The Supreme Court declined to block Maine’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, referencing Jacobson in the context of public health measures.
- Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital (S.D. Tex. 2021): The court dismissed a lawsuit challenging a hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees, citing Jacobson in its reasoning.
- Kane v. De Blasio (2nd Cir. 2021): The Second Circuit upheld New York City’s vaccine mandate for public school employees, referencing Jacobson in its analysis.
These cases collectively underscore the judiciary’s role in balancing individual rights with public health imperatives, often referencing the foundational principles established in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
Relating only to Covid 19 cases, make a two column list one for “Pro-Mandatory Vaccine Cases” and “Pro Right of Conscience Cases,” and then add the names and brief facts of each case that has been decided since mandatory Covid shots
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The legal landscape surrounding COVID-19 vaccination mandates has seen a variety of court decisions, reflecting the balance between public health measures and individual rights of conscience. Below is a categorized list of notable cases:
Pro-Mandatory Vaccine Cases
- Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University (2021)
- Facts: Indiana University implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for students. A group of students challenged the mandate, arguing it violated their constitutional rights.
- Outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the university’s mandate, referencing Jacobson v. Massachusetts to support the institution’s authority to require vaccinations for public health reasons.
- Doe v. San Diego Unified School District (2021)
- Facts: The San Diego Unified School District required students aged 16 and older to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to attend in-person classes. A student challenged the mandate on religious grounds.
- Outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied an emergency injunction against the mandate, indicating that the policy was likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
- Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital (2021)
- Facts: Houston Methodist Hospital mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for its employees. A group of employees sued, claiming the mandate was unlawful.
- Outcome: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the lawsuit, stating that the hospital’s requirement was consistent with public policy and did not violate any laws.
Pro Right of Conscience Cases
- Dahl v. Board of Trustees of Western Michigan University (2021)
- Facts: Western Michigan University required student-athletes to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Several athletes sought religious exemptions, which were denied, leading to their exclusion from team activities.
- Outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted an injunction, allowing the athletes to participate without vaccination, citing potential violations of their First Amendment rights.
- Dr. A. v. Hochul (2021)
- Facts: New York State issued a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers without providing for religious exemptions. A group of healthcare workers challenged the mandate.
- Outcome: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction against the mandate, emphasizing the need to accommodate religious beliefs.
- Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc. (2022)
- Facts: United Airlines implemented a vaccine mandate for employees, offering limited exemptions. Employees who were granted religious or medical exemptions were placed on unpaid leave.
- Outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed the lawsuit to proceed, indicating that placing employees on indefinite unpaid leave could constitute irreparable harm.
These cases illustrate the ongoing judicial efforts to balance public health imperatives with individual rights of conscience in the context of COVID-19 vaccination mandates.
Sources