bookmark_border“How many of you commenting on this…”

“How many of you commenting on this have ever had: mumps, measles, rubella, chickenpox, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough? At age 6 to 7 I had the mumps, measles, chickenpox, rubella. My parents were concerned when I had the measles and the chickenpox at the same time because the doctor questioned if I might not survive. I never want any other child to go through that. Would that the vaccines had been available when I was young.”

This is a comment that I saw on a social media post about the state of Florida’s decision to abolish vaccine mandates. This comment just didn’t sit right with me. At first glance, it’s hard to argue against someone who themselves have had a disease that vaccines are designed to prevent, and who wants to spare others from the same suffering. But I see the issue of vaccines completely differently. And the person who made this comment doesn’t seem open to other perspectives at all. She seems to think that because she has actually experienced what it’s like to have the diseases that vaccines are designed to prevent, her perspective (as well as the perspectives of those who have had similar experiences to her) is the only one that matters on this issue. With this comment, she is subtly claiming the moral high ground for herself and dismissing the experiences and perspectives of other people.

Here is my perspective:

Personally, vaccines had a huge negative impact on my childhood. I remember, from the ages of roughly four to six, the sickening feeling of dread that I would experience each time that my mom told me that I had a doctor’s appointment coming up. At each appointment, I was subjected to painful, invasive, and gruesome shots. I didn’t have the power to say no; I didn’t have any say in what would happen with my body. The dread that I felt leading up to each appointment, the sick feeling in my stomach that I experienced when waiting for the doctor to inform me how many shots I was about to be subjected to, is one of the most vivid memories of my childhood. The routine practice of vaccination was by far the biggest negative aspect of my life during those years.

I don’t believe in mandatory vaccination, because I don’t want any other child to go through what I experienced.

I wish that vaccines hadn’t been available when I was young, because then I wouldn’t have had to get them. I wouldn’t have been subjected to the years of dread and pain that mandatory vaccines inflicted.

That’s my experience.

My experience matters, and my perspective matters, just as much as the experiences and perspectives of people who got sick and wish that they had been able to get a vaccine.

It’s hard to argue against someone who has gotten so sick that they nearly didn’t survive, and wants to spare others from having the same experience. But my perspective is just as valid as this person’s, my experiences just as important and deserving of empathy. I suffered as well, and also want to spare others from having the same experience that I did. I’m tired of being silenced, attacked, insulted, called an “anti-vaxxer” and “anti-science,” my perspective disregarded again and again in favor of pro-vaccine voices.

It’s hard not to have empathy for someone who nearly died from a contagious disease. But the little girl who was subjected to painful and unwanted medical procedures deserves empathy too. Having a needle injected into your arm is not nothing, particularly when it happens again and again, month after month, year after year. For young children, as well as some adults, getting a shot is experienced as painful and gruesome, and this is a completely valid experience. Living in constant dread for years is not nothing. Being denied any say in what happens to your body is not nothing. The suffering inflicted by vaccines is very real. Vaccination significantly reduces quality of life. And these harms need to be weighed against the benefits of vaccination in preventing diseases. Because the little girl who existed 30 years ago, and who wasn’t allowed to voice her perspective or stand up for herself, matters. The fact that one little girl had mumps, measles, chickenpox, and rubella, is no reason for another little girl to be punished by having her rights violated, her preferences disregarded, and her quality of life destroyed.

As sympathetic as this commenter seems, she, like so many pro-vaccine people, is denying the existence of any perspectives other than hers. She went through something bad, so all that matters is preventing other people from experiencing the same bad thing that she did. She wishes that she had gotten vaccines when she was a child, so all children must be forced to get them. She has a preference, and so her preference must be imposed on everyone. My experiences are different from hers, and so they don’t matter.

But in reality, her experiences do not negate mine. Her desire to prevent suffering does not negate my fundamental rights. Her preference to have gotten vaccines is not a license to impose this preference on other people. Her wish that vaccines had been available to her as a child, does not make it okay to force them on other children against their will.

Let’s circle back to the question, “How many of you commenting on this have ever had: mumps, measles, rubella, chickenpox, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough?” By asking this question, the commenter seems to be implying that if someone hasn’t had one of these diseases, then they’re in no position to give their opinion on the issue of vaccines. She is implying that having had some of these diseases gives her the moral high ground and makes her perspective more valid than others. But it’s just as important and relevant to ask: “How many of you commenting on this have ever been subjected to years of constant dread and pain due to being forced against your will to get vaccines?” I have. And that’s just as important, and just as relevant, as having had a vaccine-preventable disease. Contrary to what this commenter seems to be implying, my perspective is just as valid as hers, and just as valid as anyone else’s.

bookmark_borderFlorida plans to end ALL vaccine mandates

The state of Florida is planning to end vaccine mandates. Not just covid vaccine mandates, but all of them. That is what Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo and Governor Ron DeSantis announced in a press conference this past Wednesday. 

“Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery,” Ladapo said. “Who am I, as a government or anyone else, to tell you what you should put in your body? I don’t have that right.”

I could not agree more strongly. Indeed, requiring people to get a medical procedure demonstrates complete and utter disdain. And indeed, no one has the right to tell another person what they should put in their body.

This is absolutely fantastic news for kids in Florida, because it means that the government will no longer force them to undergo medical procedures in order to attend school. But despite the fact that this is objectively fantastic news, some people (unsurprisingly but wrongly) are unhappy about it. 

On the Fox News social media post regarding this news story, the most common reactions were “like” and “love,” but the third most common was the “angry” emoji. Yes, nearly a thousand people are apparently angry about kids not being forced to undergo medical procedures against their will. How a lack of forcing people to undergo medical procedures against their will could possibly make someone angry is incomprehensible and demonstrates the complete moral bankruptcy of such a person.

On a somewhat similar note, Fox News’s medical analyst, Dr. Marc Siegel, claimed that “school mandates make sense” because they are the only way to achieve herd immunity, in which “those who can’t get that vaccine because they are immunocompromised are protected by those around them.” This way of thinking is wrong because it focuses solely on the consequences of policies, rather than the intrinsic morality (or lack thereof) of the policies themselves. Perhaps vaccine mandates are the only way to achieve herd immunity, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether mandates should exist. Vaccine mandates violate people’s rights, and therefore are wrong, and need to be abolished, regardless of any positive results that they achieve. Violating people’s rights is never okay. Similarly, perhaps vaccine mandates enable people who can’t get the vaccine to be protected by those around them, but being protected from disease by the people around you is not a right that anyone has. Declining medical intervention, on the other hand, is a right that people have, and vaccine mandates violate it. The desire for immunocompromised people to be protected by those around them does not supersede the right to decline medical intervention.

Dr. Susan Kressley, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that abolishing vaccine mandates “will put children in Florida public schools at higher risk for getting sick.” This is another example of a fact that may very well be true, but is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should have vaccine mandates. Yes, abolishing vaccine mandates may increase children’s risk of getting sick, but you know what else it will do? Stop children from being forced to undergo medical procedures against their will. And given that forcing people to undergo medical procedures violates their rights, it’s kind of important to stop doing that. Similarly to what I stated above, the desire to reduce kids’ risk of getting sick does not supersede kids’ right to decline medical intervention.

In conclusion, the decision of the state of Florida to end vaccine mandates is excellent news because it means that children’s fundamental rights will actually be respected. And there’s nothing more important than that. 

bookmark_borderA sexual assault survivor’s wise words on vaccine mandates

“Our patience is wearing thin.”

Nearly four years after Joe Biden said these words, they still send a chill down my spine. I recently came across a Substack post from a writer called Holly MathNerd, which does a great job of articulating what was so disturbing about Biden’s speech:

“That speech triggered my PTSD from sexual assault. I sat there, slack-jawed and horrified, listening as the President of the United States — a male authority figure — declared that if I wanted to keep my job, I had to enter a room, remove part of my clothing, and have my body penetrated with a medical instrument of his choosing. My will and my consent were irrelevant.

He was making the rules. My body, his choice.”

You can read the rest here.

Although I myself am not a survivor of sexual assault, these words resonate with me. There is something about being told that you are required to have your body penetrated – and that you don’t have the right to opt out or decline – that is profoundly, enormously, and fundamentally wrong. Sickening. Horrifying. The right to control your own body is the most fundamental right that there is, but this right did not matter at all to Joe Biden and his supporters. In their eyes, my will and my consent were, indeed, irrelevant. For reasons that I will never be able to fully comprehend, Biden and his administration believed that when it comes to my body, what happens should be their choice. There are no words that can adequately explain how completely and utterly messed up that is. But Holly MathNerd’s explanation comes pretty close.

bookmark_borderExcellent post re: religious exemptions from Rep. Clay Higgins

Thank you, Rep. Higgins, for stating this truth so perfectly.

No person should ever need to provide a reason or justification for refraining from receiving a medical procedure.

Refraining from receiving a medical procedure is a fundamental right. Period. Full stop. End of story.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by @blue.haired.american

Source here

bookmark_borderDon’t cry for the fired bureaucrats…

Very well-said: 

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Being Libertarian (@beingalibertarian)

Source: Being Libertarian, via Instagram

Exactly! It’s the double standards and logical inconsistency that are so infuriating. It makes no sense for people to be outraged when government workers lose their jobs, but not when private sector workers lose their jobs. This is especially true when the private sector workers lost their jobs due to regulations that government workers created and implemented. 

There are some great comments on the post which deserve to be quoted as well:

“Remember when Biden said people fired for not taking the vaccine could find another job? Well I’m sure the bureaucrats can find another job.”

“The fact that people I once called friends are boo-hooing about federal workers who held jobs which never should’ve existed and not the millions of people who lost jobs, homes, or businesses due to the actions of the regulatory agencies those workers worked for…sickens me.”