Supreme Court, Aspirin, United States Supreme Court discussed on WGN Programming

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

And do up stations while there are none left coast to coast 19. Johnson. No. Didn't short They did have a hit and 61 with baby. Oh, baby, you never from Brooklyn. All right. We are talking about all things Cove in 19, particularly from a legal perspective, and we are doing that with Quentin Brogden and I've got a link to crane Brogden Rogers Com on rolly dot net. Very interesting sight in a very interesting practice and certainly cope it from the legal perspective is a very interesting topic. And we were just about to broach the idea of the vaccine. And of course, this is this is nothing new because vaccines have been mandated for school kids and all of that, and very often when there is a new incident, that's the first time some people find out that G. You don't have the right to sue. So what's up with this? Well, Rollie, you've got two entities in your lives that may require vaccinations, mandatorily or otherwise, your employer and your government. If it's your employer, it's going to need to satisfy the 88 The American with Disabilities Act. It's going to need to be job related. It's got to be consistent with business assess itty or justified by some direct threat, and it has to be no broader and no more intrusive than necessary. So, for example, healthcare providers, schools, nursing homes. Other employees that work with huh? Environments. You know, nursing homes, For instance, they custom Erika Lee can and have required their employees to be vaccinated against not, you know, even predating Cove it right. But other employers who may not be able to meet that standard have not been able to have not required it number one and wouldn't Presumably be able to meet that standard. But even those employers who can meet the standard they still under Title seven another federal statute they have to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious belief. Ondo, also under the ADA. If the employee has a disability or medical condition that might make them susceptible to the vaccine, the employer may not be able to require that employees to be vaccinated even if they're in the high risk environment, and they meet all the other standards. So It's It's a kind of is. The answer is it depends when it comes to the employer. And the longer answer is perhaps, but with some exceptions. And then you get to the government. If you want to go there, we can talk about that. Yeah, absolutely does with the employer one thing assuming you have a preexisting condition, You also have to find a doctor who was willing to Ah, document that and many of them just like those who won't give out a narcotic for extreme pain because they don't want the paperwork and the finger pointing. It's hard to find somebody who will write you that exemption except in extreme extreme cases, But of course All that's out. The window went when it's the government and a number of people who are concerned about the government, perhaps passing mandatory vaccination. Look back to the Supreme Court from about 1905, where the Supreme Court says Yes, we can do it. That's on a federal level. So where are we now? Well, that's right, and you hit the nail on the head. The case it's most often discuss is a 1905 United States Supreme Court case and involved mandatory smallpox vaccinations. Because of a smallpox outbreak in Massachusetts and the case, Jacobson versus Massachusetts, and there was a fine of a whopping amount of $5, which I presume in 1902. I guess when the statute was passed in the 1905 was quite a large amount, and the Supreme Court said that states do have the police powers you know, to enact reasonable regulations to protect public health, public safety in the common good. And vaccination mandates were exactly the kind of permissible state action to protect the public health and sure the rights of the individual may at times under the pressure of greater, you know, communal dangers. He subjected to restrain, you know, that's what the language of the cases. So the question today is in light of a lot of new case law and changes in jurisprudence, which is just a fancy word for Cases, hands down by the courts and the legal environment. We're swimming in his lawyers. And is that 1905 case still good. Justice Samuel Alito, one of the Supreme Court justices said. You know, just a couple of weeks ago and a legal convention. He mentioned this case and essentially said We're in a new environment. We're you know, being subjected to what he called a constitutional stress test where We are undergoing previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. Those were his work, and he said this case from 1905. Was handed down, you know, in a different Time and it did not, he said Quote it did not involve sweeping restrictions imposed across the country for an extended period. And it does not mean that whenever there is an emergency executive officials have Unlimited unreviewable discretion, So at least one of our justices is saying that case is not a blank check, and so we're still going to be looking at these issues on a case by case basis. That's that. That's heartening, because I know many people want to make that decision for themselves, not be not be forced into it by some mandate on now, in, uh, if that were to pass, there's gonna be a mandate interventional line up. The problem that I see is that, like a number of issues regarding health care is you might have no redress You there. There. There's a secret vaccine court and things like that. But assuming here comes the cove it and you know, vaccine rollout and somebody is is severely injured. Long term. What's the likelihood that they're going to get compensation? Well, uh, you know, there is a vaccination statured that Limits your compensation. Federally. Yeah, And so you know, I've looked at those cases over the year in the statute makes it very unlike profitable if you will for any lawyer to pursue that it essentially shields the vaccine makers. And the idea, presumably, is that for the greater good, we're going to roll this out. We know that some people have adverse reactions, but we're Mandating this for the greater good and we're protecting the companies that makes the vaccines so that they will make these vaccines and More people will be aided, then will be injured, and inevitably there will be some adverse reactions. I guess the defense of that, you know, we know certain numbers of people will die every year from taking aspirin. Certain people die every single year from adverse reactions to ask, Believe it or not, no, absolute so, but we still sell aspirin it you know your CVS store on the corner. We don't take it off the shelf because we've decided as a society that Mork Good. And they're more beneficial things that flow from aspirin. Then from those individuals who suffer those adverse reactions, they're in the minority. More people, you know, obtained benefits, the difference of balancing terms. Yeah, but the difference and it's a big one. And I know you know where I'm going is that nobody is putting a gun to your head and say, Take that aspirin. It's an individual choice. You assume that people are able to with to weigh the risks for themselves and make decisions now we're talking about you don't have a choice here and you, You basically are going to take one for the Gipper, and it's further common good, So let's say, somebody says Now, obviously, if it's an employer situation, like we've talked in the employer is granted that discretion they may be out of a job. But here here comes the government and they say you got it. You got to get this shot and you say I am doing it. What? Is what are their possible remedies. Well, that Hit the nail on the head, because when you're dealing with Children and vaccinations, typically that's enforced at the schoolhouse door. You can't get into. You can't continue to attend the school. Your Children can't unless they're vaccinated. Or unless they have some kind of waiver for adults. That's going to be very, very difficult to enforce so you can pass a mandate. But if I decide not to do it, how will you will you tax me? Will you impose a penalty on T ony such as what Obama care, Uh did, uh, what will that be The attempted way to do it where I can perhaps abstain from the vaccination, But I'm going to pay more in taxes. If I do isn't a mandate that really involves a tax. Is a way to enforce it. Do you incentivize states? If you're the federal government by withholding Medicare, Medicaid, you know federal funds if a certain percentage of the population You know, Sort of like what they did with seat belts mean Lim?.

Coming up next