Professors: Going to Public Places Should be a “Privilege” Reserved for the Vaccinated

Do you have a right to leave your home to eat or recreate? Apparently not if you are a “non-vac.” NYU Professor Arthur Caplan and Yale Professor Sarah Hull have published an essay in MedPageToday declaring that unvaccinated people should be barred from public places from airplanes to movie theaters to restaurants. What is most striking is how the two academics (who teach bioethics) declare that appearing public is a privilege, not a right. They are not alone in such views. CNN’s Don Lemon recently called for barring unvaccinated people from offices and businesses, insisting “It has nothing to do with liberty. You don’t have the freedom and the liberty to put other people in jeopardy.”  The essay comes as New York announces mandatory proof of vaccines will be required for public places.

Caplan and Hull call for a vaccine passport system much like the government program in France and insist “Liberty does not mean you have the freedom to do whatever you want wherever you want,. Nor does it make sense to conflate the concept of individual rights, which inform our liberties, with that of privileges, which are predicated on each of us upholding certain responsibilities.”

They added:

“It is hard to argue in good faith that American citizens have an inalienable “right” to dine at restaurants, attend shows in a theater, and travel for leisure. Indeed, if these were truly protected as rights, our government would be obligated to ensure basic access to them through entitlement programs or legal protection.”

Obviously, just because something is a right does not entitle people to entitlement programs. You have a right of free speech but there are not entitlement programs for speech. They are correct that there are legal protections for such rights.

However, the argument that appearing in public is not a right but a privilege ignores how a myriad of related rights involve public interaction.  Speech, religious, and associational rights are often curtailed or denied by such restrictions. The Supreme Court has also recognized a right to movement in cases like In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), where it supported the “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.” There are also rights of due process and equal protection that can be raised in some cases depending on the public forum.

Caplan and Hull declare:

“there is ample precedent for limiting individual liberty. What you choose to do cannot impinge upon the liberty of others. Driving is a privilege that must be maintained by ongoing licensure, registration, vehicle inspection, and adherence to the rules of the road for the sake of personal and public safety so that all may drive. If you reject these responsibilities, you risk losing the privilege of driving.”

There are many liberties that can be denounced as “impinging” on others. Indeed, that is the common argument used by growing limits on free speech, the subject of my testimony last year in Congress.

Moreover, the analogy to driving is a poor one. Driving requires proficiency in operating a vehicle. No one seriously argues that there is a “right” to fly a plane or drive a car without proven ability to do so. These activities could cause serious injury or death in others in the operation of such vehicles. It would be catastrophic for individual rights if freedoms of movement and association were treated like the privilege of driving. These are rights that adhere to the basic existence of humans in their interaction and engagement with others. That is why we have licenses to drive but not licenses to speak or associate or travel. It is the inverse of China which has an actual social scoring to determine your access to privileges like travel.

Yes, being unvaccinated creates risks for others, but many protected activities can be associated with social costs. Speech can be condemned for fueling hate or intimidating others.  Indeed, CNN’s media expert Brian Stelter supported reductions of free speech as “a harm reduction model.” Likewise, there is no limiting principle to this theory. Presumably, in high transmission areas, citizens could be equally limited from even venturing out into “public places” like parks or beaches while “vacs” are given full freedom of movement. Finally, this reframing of rights invited highly biased judgments like declaring mass Black Lives Matter protests as justified (as public health causes) while supporting bans on religious gatherings or protests for other causes.

Even non-fundamental rights are protected by the need for the government to show a rational basis for such limitations. While questioning vaccination mandates are now considered threats to public health and are routinely censored on social media, there are some challenging aspects of these mandates as irrational, including failing to exempt millions of people who have natural antibodies due to their recovery from Covid-19.

What is concerning is the degree to which the Biden Administration has openly declared a preference for private companies to enforce a type of vaccine mandate. Others have explained that the effort should be to coerce people into taking the vaccine by making their lives or employment impossible unless they yield. CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen called for coercive measures making it “hard for people to remain unvaccinated.” Many have listened. The NFL, for example, has been accused making life “a living hell” for NFL players who prefer to be tested but not vaccinated.

The essay by these professors shows how this approach can put all rights on a slippery slope of relative risk avoidance. They write that “the concept of requiring COVID-19 vaccination to access privileges involving social gathering similarly protects public health and prevents reckless individuals from harming others.” There are a host of ways that people engage in reckless conduct that could endanger others. Indeed, there are a host of other viruses and illness that can be spread in social settings. The essay would leave it to the government and private companies to condition social engagements and public movement on good choices. After all, “the dangers we collectively face are too great to indulge bad choices any longer.”

I agree that people should be vaccinated and my entire family was eager to participate in the program.  However, a crackdown of “bad choices” like “bad speech” can easily convert individual rights into privileges enjoyed at the discretion of the government. That is an even greater danger to citizens. Our Constitution is based on the premise that the government’s powers, not our rights, must be limited and express. The government does not “indulge” our choices on association or speech or travel. It exists in that space created by the indulgence of a free people.

142 thoughts on “Professors: Going to Public Places Should be a “Privilege” Reserved for the Vaccinated”

  1. I’m sure they meant to say with sterilizing immunity, which would preclude many, perhaps a large minority even with the limited data, of vaccinated people… persons.

  2. So rights are *not* inviolate. There is no such thing as the *inalienable* right to life. An individual only has “privileges” — special benefits and favors issued by Higher Authorities. You don’t exist by right. You exist by permission. And what those Authorities (aka fascists) give, they can take away. So: Obey the health care tyrants, or lose your “privilege” to live.

    The French Revolution’s Reign of Terror is supposed to be a warning — not a blueprint.

    I think it’s time for another Tea Party.

  3. Doesn’t a business owner have the right to transact with un-vaccinated patrons on his premises?
    or armed ones or un-bathed ones or ones taking pictures and video?
    or not?
    at his/her discretion?

  4. 1) “…if these were truly protected as rights, our government would be obligated to ensure basic access to them through entitlement programs or legal protection.” This claims that rights are only rights if the government has an entitlement program, which means by extension that the government decides what rights the individual has. This is completely opposite of what government in the U.S. is about. The government works for the citizens, not the other way. The government was never instilled with the authority to decide what rights citizens have. Citizens have the authority to mandate what the government may do.

    2) The gov’t does mandate access to public places – the ADA. Thus, by their own argument, the government has said that going out in public is a right.

    3) If having the vaccine makes you safe, then how does someone without the vaccine make the vaccinated unsafe?

    4) Given the extent of lying that has gone on, all in the name of “safety”, how does anyone know what is safe? Remember when Trump wanted to close the borders and everyone said he was being racist? Now, it is the opposite and they are opening the borders to illegals with no vaccination and then letting them go – why aren’t they being vaccinated? Hypocrisy makes it very hard to believe anything, especially when it is being shoved down your throat.

  5. My understanding is that even if you are vaccinated you can still get the virus and still transmit the virus. The effect of the vaccine is to reduce symptoms for the individual.

    This has been explained by the CDC and is the reason that now vaccinated people are being told to wear a mask.

    If a vaccinated person can still carry the virus and spread it then how is this protecting the people around them.

    The entire argument from the beginning does not even make sense to me.

    If unvaccinated people should be barred from public access because they can spread the virus and infect and it is possible for a vaccinated person to do the same then there is not difference between the two as far as it relates to infecting others.

    Neither case is protecting others.

    What am I missing here?

    1. You’re missing the point that the Narrative is more important than reality.

      In reality, an asymptomatic and infected vaxxed person is likely to have a larger viral load than an unvaxxed asymptomatic infected person, which means the vaxxed asymptomatic infected carrier is more of a danger to all. Instead of dropping testing requirements for the vaxxed, they should be tested as frequently, if not more frequently, than the unvaxxec.

    2. My understanding is that even if you are vaccinated you can still get the virus and still transmit the virus. The effect of the vaccine is to reduce symptoms for the individual.

      Your understanding is base on what the CDC told you. The Asymptomatic spread of delta, so far lacks any scientific basis. At least that’s what scientist have asked for. The study supporting the conclusion. The larger point, the unvaccinated accept the risk. The vaccinated’s only risk is a cold.
      The lie propagated by the CDC is the constant focus on vaccinations. At the same time ignoring immunity, and theraputics

    3. “What am I missing here?”

      That according to the “Authorities,” we are all irresponsible, mindless children who should blindly obey every absurdity and contradiction. That the “Authorities” know, somehow, what’s good for you. and will compel you to accept it.

  6. Back home in South Africa, they can’t do vaccine passports because of how similar it is to the dompass, a license the apartheid government issued for non-whites to visit white-only areas. Just saying

  7. Bayer gave us Baycol, supposed to lower cholesterol. Ended up being recalled 3 years later, one of the side effects? Death.

    Remember Bextra? Supposed to give you pain relief. It did. Of course one of the side effects was dying, but that does relieve your pain. Pulled after 4 years after the same doctors, medical centers and institutions telling us the vaccine is safe, fed us Bextra, telling us it was safe.

    Propulsid was supposed to relieve heartburn. They told us it was safe. The govt told us it was safe. And it did relieve your heartburn. It also relieved you of your heartbeat. It was pulled after these same govt agencies told us it was safe and these same medical institutions and personnel fed it to us for seven years for causing serious cardiac arrhythmias.

    Accutane, known as Isotretinoin was on the market for 27 YEARS to treat acne. In 2009 it was recalled for increased risk of birth defects, miscarriages, inflammatory bowel disease and giving the taker suicidal tendencies. So if the acne didn’t get you to kill yourself don’t worry kid, the treatment will.

    Over 7,000 lawsuits were filed, some with judgments in the millions against just over the side effects alone on this product that these same “experts” sold to high school kids.

    Anyone remember Raptiva?

    It was supposed to relieve skin itching, you know psoriasis. The commercials for this filled the airwaves back in 2003 , selling it to anyone with a dry patch on their skin. Those commercials ended around 2009 when it was pulled because one of the ways it relieved you of dry skin was relieving you of your skin altogether. It caused a “fatal” disease known as PML, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, basically causing your brain to swell up and eat itself. But hey, no more itchy skin ay?

    And I know most of the older folks will remember Vioxx.

    Merck had Dorothy Hamill and Bruce Jenner selling it to us during the Olympics. It was for pain relief. The same govt and medical agencies and institutions told us it was safe. Sold it to us with the flag waving behind it and Dorothy Hamill standing there with her Olympic gold medals. Then people started to drop dead from it. Around 30 thousand heart attacks later they finally pulled it in 2003. Then Bruce Jenner became a woman. ….not sure the connection there just thinking outload here.

    If you had irritable bowel you could take “Zelnorm”. It relieved it, especially for those who died from it. They pulled it after 4 years for increased risk of heart attack and death.

    Most people should know Meridia. It was just pulled in 2010 as the FDA after approving it testified to the Senate that it was so dangerous it was what they called “another Vioxx”.

    These are just a few, so when I say “Zantac”, I’m just using it as one minor example of the endless list of crap, …these same companies, manufacturers, doctors, govt agencies and medical institutions have been selling us on as “safe” and these WERE tested and went through the usual multi-year trial periods, studies, etc.

    And they got soooooo many wrong. These are just a small sampling.

    These pale next to the larger more stunning judgements and awards over the last few decades from these same companies now making and pushing the vaccines.

    Most of these larger judgements for, yup you guessed it. Misrepresentation on safety.

    In 2012 GlaxoSmithKline got hit for 3 billion for numerous violations mostly tied to misrepresentation, including making false and misleading statements about Avandia’s safety.

    In 2009 Pfizer got slammed with an actual Criminal fine of 2.3 billion dollars for pushing Bextra as safe.

    Johnson & Johnson received Criminal fines and forfeiture for misrepresentation to the tune of $485 million, along with 1.72 billion dollars in civil settlements.

    Then there’s Abbott, $1.5 billion in 2012, Eli Lilly $1.42 billion in 2009, Merck $950 million in 2011
    Amgen paid $762 million in 2012, AstraZeneca, $520 million in 2010, Actelion $360 million in 2018, Purdue Pharma $270 million in 2019 and on and on. These are the same companies, manufacturers, agencies and institutions involved who I am being told now to shut up and trust.

    These same people, who’s track records lets just say leave some room for doubt, …, these same people I am supposed to now blindly trust because you, whoever you may be cowering from behind that little mask on your face, you say are the “experts” and “know what they’re doing”.

    I disagree. And I think its my right as an American, .., hell as a Human being, to make such choices when it comes to my own body, your overhyped unsupported fears notwithstanding.

    The fact is MOST people who contract the virus will experience little to no symptoms and almost none will die. Only those with compromised immune systems already. This according to the CDC, since day 1.

    So I’m sorry, but your (speaking to whatever self appointment member of the newly minted health-care-home-guard-nanny-state patrol this may concern) unwarranted fears do not overrule my right to make choices for my own body and my own health care, nor does any of this give you the or anyone else including Facebook or Congress, the right to prohibit me from hearing a second opinion. Particularly in light of the well documented and easily demonstrable track record of those whom you say I should listen to. You can listen to them if you want. But I reserve the right to think for myself, and make my own health care choices.

    Using your own logic the decision should already be clear when it comes to health care decisions for the individual. You already made the argument. Roe v Wade.

    My body, my choice.

    1. As a boy I learned there are three things in this life that give men courage they don’t deserve.


      A pistol.

      And anonymity.

    2. Thanks for the list Chris! A couple of more to add to it – Fen-Phen, the weight loss drug that caused heart valve problems and good old Thalidomide that was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It caused severe birth defects in thousands of children.

      Why aren’t the the conservative media printing this info and getting it on Fox? Why isn’t this in the Epoch Times?

    3. There is a reason why commercials for a drug have more time devoted to the potential problems of a ‘therapy’ than the actual ad for it. Then there are the magazine ads where one page extols the virtue of a drug and five pages the potential problems.
      I loved your Bruce Jenner note, almost spilled my coffee.

    4. OK, each of these examples involves drugs, NOT vaccines, created from the DNA of a virus to stimulate your immune system to prevent you from getting sick if you should encounter the virus later. Drugs, which are chemical compounds, and vaccines, created using elements of a virus, and designed to create immunity, are not the same thing at all. The reasoning and logic behind drugs found to either be ineffective or dangerous after approval do not apply because the drugs you mention do not involve stimulating the immune system to react to the foreign protein of a virus to protect you from serious illness. Can you cite any examples of a vaccine that was found to be dangerous?* No. Please stop looking for reasons to prolong this pandemic.

      *And, before anyone cites the “Cutter Incident” involving the polio vaccine, I’ll pre-empt you: Cutter Pharmaceuticals had a bad batch of the Salk polio vaccine, which was supposed to use killed poliovirus cells, but due to some manufacturing error, all of the cells weren’t killed. That was a manufacturing error, and in no way changes the equation. If we hadn’t had the polio vaccine, millions of children would have died or be permanently paralyzed.

      1. I think it’s a done deal. The net result of trumpism is, among other things, the very practice of vaccination has become decimated by fear and propaganda, basically a crucial first step to complete societal break down. Never let it be said trump wasn’t an effective president. What he chose to be effective with was self destructive and suicidal, but at least it postponed his inevitable trip to jail and put more than a few dollars in his bank accounts — so it’s all good.


    5. Chris, I liked the dark humor of this post.

      I would add that vaccine manufacturers received an exemption from lawsuits. This is because a small number of people have serious adverse reactions to vaccines. Not many, but enough to bankrupt every manufacturer in the age of multi-million dollar awards for single cases.

    6. As anyone who’s read the few posts I make in here knows I don’t respond to trolls and I don’t usually go back and comment on my old comments.

      But once in a while I skim a comment or two and I saw the amazing comment declaring my comment irrelevant because the suits mentioned involved “drugs not vaccines”, and it stuck with me for a few days and even though I’m not subscribed to this comment I got an email telling me someone “liked it” so I decided to take a moment and address this “remarkable” argument I read a few days ago made by some anonymous troll.

      So here we have the same manufacturers. like Pfizer making the vaccines that made the drugs. Same doctors and medical institutions handing them out and same govt agencies approving them.

      Yet this troll says “they only lie about drugs, not vaccines”

      In the words of Harry Hu (Get Smart original series) …”Amazing…”

      If I walk into the market and they tell me the apples are fresh and I buy a bag and they’re rotten, then I’d have to be pretty obtuse to trust them on the oranges.

      If they’ll lie about the one, then obviously they’ll lie about the other too.

  8. If implemented, I wonder if the Democrats will enforce it against all the illegal immigrants they are letting into the country? And if there are more BLM riots, will Democratic mayors ask for vaccination passports before allowing the looting to begin? Given the political football the Dems have chosen to play with this pandemic, we cannot trust this government to carry out any policy in a fair and unbiased manner.

    1. Especially NOT elections —->

      “Due to new “delta variant” California will be mailing in ballots for recall election.

      You can’t make this sh*t up. Setting it up for @GavinNewsom to stay in power.

      If you can’t see how obvious the corruption & lies are then you’re truly lost.”

  9. If anyone believes that the government is acting for the well-being of the people regarding covid-19, they’re not paying attention.

    What we learned early from the Diamond Princess cruise ship was that the virus is highly transmissible, and most deadly to seniors. Yet not only were caregivers in NY instructed to put sick old folk into nursing homes, they were also directed to not consider whether the patients moved to the nursing homes has covid or not. That’s criminal negligence, at the very least – but the thousands of deaths had the effect of creating the panic that justified the lockdowns.

    It was widely predicted by medical professionals that the net effect of lockdowns would be highly negative on people’s well-being, but the government ignored the hippocratic oath: “first do no harm”. Now we have huge increases in suicides and drug deaths, and millions of people who lost their jobs will soon be homeless. Yet there are suggestions of more lockdowns – even though there is absolutely no evidence among states or nations that they reduce the spread or impact of the virus.

    Absolutely no mention was made by figures like Fauci of the many things that one can easily do to strengthen one’s immune system (zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, good rest, etc). What was promoted was things that have little or negative effect (masks, lockdowns).

    The vaccines are experimental. No pregnant women were included in the trials. Because of what the Nazis did in Germany, the Nuremburg code says no one should be coerced into any medical treatment in any way, but the govt wants to take away the jobs and social life of those who don’t submit to the jab. Dr. Malone, who invented the mRNA technique, and Dr. Yeadon, a former chief scientist of Pfizer, say there are significant long-term risks from the vaccines and that much more testing is needed. My wife, a pathologist who considered getting the vaccine but thinks the risks are too high, thinks its criminal to push people into getting the shot.

    A comprehensive, peer-reviewed Chinese study of the effects of the virus in Wuhan found, among other things, that asymptomatic carriers of the virus do not transmit it.

    The probability of hospitalization of people less than 20 years old is greater for the vaccine than the virus – but they’re pushed to get it anyway.

    There are numerous reports of people crossing the southern border with the virus, but absolutely zero concern by the government as they bus or fly these people to all parts of the country.

    The new Delta variant appears to be highly transmissible, but causes relatively few hospitalizations and even fewer deaths.

    If one is scientific in looking at all the facts, one can only conclude that the government wants 100% vaccination not because its best for the health and well-being of the people, but because they don’t want the future possibility of comparing the vaccinated to a ‘control group’ of the unvaccinated.

    I sincerely hope that all who get vaccinated live long, healthy lives. I’m betting on my immune system.

  10. The tyrants of the supposed ruling class are roaming the halls of tyranny in search of any means necessary to control others. Opening every door they encounter seeking what may be inside to help them obtain absolute power of others within society. They are of the mindset that they and they alone know what’s best for others who do not accept their view of what is right for the future. Making up excuses or outright lies to assume absolute power over others and trying to enforce a new dogma that will allow them to have continued domain over others. These dogmatic individuals come from many walks of life, Universities, Business, Politics, Labor Unions and more with the intent to forcibly have you join their path or be cast as reprobates, doltish or insurrectionist to be shunned. I quote from John Locke’s “The Second Treatise on Civil Government” Chapter IV, # 22; “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation and life together. For a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot by compact or his own consent enslave himself to anyone, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that cannot take away his own life cannot give another over it. “

    1. Karen: you don’t even know what a caste society is. For just one thing: you can never leave the caste you were born in, which does not apply to vaccination.


    “This finding, that VoC-RBD-reactive MBCs are present in the peripheral blood of all subjects including those that experienced asymptomatic or mild disease, provides a reason for optimism regarding the capacity of vaccination, prior infection, and/or both, to limit disease severity and transmission of variants of concern as they continue to arise and circulate.”

  12. Yet again, academics make ignorant, politicized statement. The trend is that the elites want power to dictate to the peasants.

    No one should force anyone to have a medical procedure or vaccination. Vaccines protect the recipient from contagion they may encounter. That’s the entire point. PSA announcements, and regular releases of studies that show the benefit of vaccines are the way to go.

    Aside from my general position that no one should be forced to get vaccinated:

    Why should those who recovered from Covid already be vaccinated? If they got Delta, they’re immune to Delta. If they got Alpha, then I assume that their resistance to Delta should be equal to or greater than those who were vaccinated. I have read two studies that showed that those with acquired immunity from infection have reinfection rates similar to those who were vaccinated. HOWEVER, I do not know if Delta has specifically been studied in this regard. Mandating vaccines for those who were previously infected does not follow the science.

    “Among the 52238 included employees, 1359 (53%) of 2579 previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated, compared with 22777 (41%) of 49659 not previously infected. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity).”

    1. More of Karen’s railing about the “elites v. the peasants”. She is the latter. Vaccines protect everyone, especially children under the age of 12 who aren’t eligible yet to receive the COVID vaccine, but who are being hospitalized at an alarming rate.

      1. It’s disgusting for many of us reading your lies here almost daily that can be endangering the health of others.

        Hell you can’t stay update on the available publicly known facts on most of these important subjects.

        What country are you living in Communist China? That’s what you act like. If not you can always move if they’ll even take your kind?

          1. “what have I lied about?

            Among countless other things, this:

            Children “are being hospitalized at an alarming rate.”

            As opposed to the truth:

            “It’s really important that we distinguish between children who are hospitalized with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and those hospitalized for COVID-19 disease,” said Alan Schroeder, MD, a co-author of the paper and clinical professor of pediatric critical care and of pediatric hospital medicine. “Our goal is to make sure we have accurate data on how sick children are getting. If we rely on hospitals’ positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, we are inflating by about two-fold the actual risk of hospitalization from the disease in kids.”

            Note the Stanford Study’s conclusion: A bit over *50%* of the children “were admitted for reasons unrelated to the virus.”


            1. That piece you cited is dated in MAY, 3 months ago, back when the CDC said the masks could come off. Things are different now since the unvaccinated have helped Delta take over. Check out the stats in Louisiana and other deep-red states where the Delta variant is raging. I saw an interview with a Louisiana pediatrician last night who said the number of children admitted to Louisiana hospitals with COVID is the highest it’s ever been. My point was that vaccines don’t just protect those who receive them. Children under 12 have not been approved to be vaccinated, and they are contracting the Delta variant because the unvaccinated are spreading it, so everyone should take steps to protect children because they can’t get the vaccine.

              What else have I lied about, according to you?

              1. Not a single word you wrote speaks to the subject of that article: that the reporting is inflated.

                Pro tip: When you’re replying to a person’s claim that you’re being deceptive, don’t make your reply deceptive.

    2. January 26, 2021
      Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19
      At a Glance

      – The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.
      – The results provide hope that people receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will develop similar lasting immune memories after vaccination.

  13. This is a case where the government has overplayed their hand. It is like the boy who cried wolf.

    I’ve had the vaccine and think everyone should get it But, that’s my choice and it is a good thing to do. We have a vaccine! What is the hesitation? I wear a mask because it is mandated and out of respect for those who are vulnerable, not for fear. But in our state, the governor has just threatened a small school district in the middle of nowhere that unless they comply with the state mandates that were decided for the urban school districts that all administration, licensed personnel will be fired and school board disbanded. As if parents and teachers are stupid subjects of a mad king.

    Absolute power has corrupted some in government absolutely.

  14. The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which has committed treason by failing to do its sworn duty to support the literal “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.

    The Constitution provides impeachment and conviction as the solution to this problem.

    Chaos will be the inevitable result if the judicial branch is not impeached, convicted and removed, by any and all means.

  15. If the unwashed (i.e. unvaccinated) are so irredeemably evil, stupid and bigoted our leftist moral bettors should want to be rid of us. After all, we are preventing their leftist, multicult utopia. But that is not how the left works and they have no hesitation at using compulsion to achieve their goals, after all it’s for everyone’s own good. And besides they like rubbing your nose in it.

    I want a divorce!


  16. This is a great idea but why limit it to vaccines? Anyone that any contagious disease, e.g., the flu, measles, chickenpox, or even an STD, should be fined for going anywhere in public. And, as long as we are conditioning “benefits” on behavior, let’s condition Medicare on proof that one regularly exercises and has a healthy diet (or at least make those that refuse pay higher premiums). Also, let’s require any woman planning to give birth prove she has the financial wherewithal to raise it. If not, she has to abort or give the child up for adoption.

    1. It is standard practice that if you have the flu, measles or chickenpox that you stay home and it would be completely reasonable for places to ban those with those from their businesses. STDs are much harder to transmit to random people.

        1. The politicians and their captive health officials are trying to turn companies and business into an extension of the state police forces and have them do the enforcement.

          Can that really work when real security guards are afraid to even stop shoplifters in places like Walgreen’s from shoplifting everything that isn’t locked down?

  17. More red meat for the disciples in preparation for 2022, to sell the idea that Joe Biden is some kind of wanna-be dictator who gets private businesses to act as surrogates in imposing vaccination mandates, all to deny the disciples some perceived right to live like there isn’t any pandemic and to go around spreading infection. Turley acts like it’s bad for the Biden Administration to “prefer” that private businesses take measures to ensure cooperation with vaccination. That’s what a competent leader should do, and it’s what other world leaders are doing, too. Do you really want the economy to tank again, for schools not to reopen this fall, for factories and restaurants to be forced to close? And, where’s the proof that those who have been infected with COVID have sufficient antibodies to protect the rest of us? The CDC recommends vaccination even for those who have had COVID.

    Turley, today the following retailers announced they will require vaccination for their employees: Target, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Publix, Kohl’s and Apple. Where is the proof that these companies, as well as the NFL, are doing this because they have been asked to serve as surrogates for Biden? Maybe, just maybe, they see the surge in the Delta variant, with infection and hospitalization rates as high as they were before vaccines became available, and want to do their part to protect their employees and the public and to stop the spread. Turley doesn’t give these companies much credit for making their own business decisions, but, that’s not what he’s paid by Fox to do–it’s to keep the disciples riled up against the Biden Administration for something as benign as trying to help stop the spread of COVID.

    Where is the “right” to go around during a pandemic and to refuse to be vaccinated and/or wear a mask? The Paul v. Virginia case is not on point, because interstate movement is not being prevented, and “freedom of association” is also not implicated. There’s lots of ways for people to “associate” without spreading a deadly disease. What about freedom for the rest of us from having a deadly disease continue spreading, resulting in illness, hospitalization and deaths, when it can be prevented? One of Turley’s assignments is to keep the disciples believing that it’s OK not to get vaccinated, that their “objections” have equal weight to recommendations of public health officials, and that if they can’t just do as they please while refusing vaccination, that somehow their rights are being trampled.

    1. “What about freedom for the rest of us from having a deadly disease continue spreading, resulting in illness, hospitalization and deaths, when it can be prevented?”

      I’m concerned about all those residents and vacationers on tiny Martha’s Vineyard who will be at risk from Obama’s massive super spreader bash this week. You do know fully vaxxed CAN get and SPREAD the virus, right?

      But it’s okay because Obama is “following the CDC guidelines” for his 700 person bash, right?

      Will they be closing the air space over MV? Where are they parking all those private jets? How many port-o-potties will they have scattered about their massive estate?

      Just spare us their whining and lectures about climate crisis, ETCETERA. No one is listening.

      We see the disgusting hypocrisy, even if you pretend you do not.

    2. Your freedom only extends to the point where you can make decisions about what measures you take to protect yourself and your property. It doesn’t give you the right to dictate to others what measures others must take.

      Two people don’t have more rights than a single individual and it certainly doesn’t give them the right to tell others what to do. That’s just a sneaky way of saying Might Makes Right.

      Ultimately we are all free individuals who have to make our own assessments as to how much risk we are willing to assume. None of us has the right to outsource that assessment to some outside authority.

      1. Congratulations trump! During your mesmeric period of influence, the mean intelligence level of the American public dropped to the point of non-sustainability and non-survival. And, Donald, or rather ‘the donald’, while you were the end result of a long progression, it’s pretty much all your fault…

        But it’s all good. Turley and his pack of obtuse ones have your back!!!


    3. If I wanted to listen to the current (and ever changing) Biden Admin talking points I’d watch CNN…

      Wonder if you’re paid by the word or post? Judging by the length of your tomes, by the word.

  18. The right thinks freedom is a privilege, and it is not. Freedom comes with responsibilities attached, and sacrifices to be made.

    1. FW

      There in a nutshell is the Lefty misconception.

      Freedom is a right, not a privilege.

      1. Tell that to people of color. Tell that to gay citizens. Tell that to the disabled. Tell that to workers who had their heads busted because they wanted a fair wage. Saying freedom is a right does not make it so.

        1. Fishwings:

          Freedom is literally a right, not a privilege. See The Constitution.

          This Constitution applies to everyone, black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, etc.

          Getting a “fair wage” is not in the constitution. Ask 3 people what they think a fair wage is for pushing a broom, and you’ll probably get 3 answers.

          Busing anyone’s heads is called assault, and is a crime.

          1. Getting a “fair wage” is not in the constitution. Ask 3 people what they think a fair wage is for pushing a broom, and you’ll probably get 3 answers.

            The only fair wage is $zero

          2. Now, Karen’s trying to pretend she’s a Constitutional scholar. She hasn’t even read it, or the Mueller Report, either, but hey, don’t let facts get in the way. The Constitution does provide for equal protection under the law.

        2. That’s why freedom must be fought for, sometimes violently, just as it sometimes must be fought for to not be taken away.

        3. Saying freedom is a right does not make it so.

          Infringement of a right doesn’t make it a privilege. Damn! These natural rights exist whether government exists or not. What you’re describing is best defined as the disabling of a natural right. Anyone sentenced to prison is having their natural right to freedom disabled. When they are released, they begin to have their natural right enabled. Anyone stupid enough to believe that a natural right doesn’t exist because it can be infringed should have their voting privilege revoked.

Leave a Reply