Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)
During the COVID era, many legal fights over medical mandates leaned on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, often cited yet misinterpreted as endorsing a sweeping state power to compel vaccination. In fact, Henning Jacobson was not forcibly vaccinated. The case turned on a $5 penalty for refusal, which he ultimately paid; the Court did not authorize forced inoculation.
Buck v. Bell (1927)
Two decades later, Jacobson was invoked to justify eugenic sterilization. Institutionalized and declared “feebleminded” by the family of a man she accused of raping her, Carrie Buck became the test case for forced sterilization. Virginia’s law asserted that “the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted… by the sterilization of mental defectives.” Writing for the Court, Justice Holmes infamously concluded:
“The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Between 1927 and 1956, more than 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized under similar statutes across 32 states. Buck’s rationale even appeared in Nazi legal arguments at Nuremberg “to justify their forced sterilization of hundreds of thousands of people during the 1930s and ’40s.” Although Virginia later repealed its law, the Buck decision has never been overturned. Let this horrific injustice stand as a warning against appeals to the “common good” that trample individual liberty.
Power, Bias, and Consent—Then and Now
The bureaucratic and corporate sway that enabled Carrie Buck’s ordeal has modern echoes. Consider the overt and implied biases of lawmakers. Would you trust any of them, individually or collectively, to make medical decisions for you or your children?
Now ask the same of industry. Would you entrust your family’s medical choices to corporations duty-bound to shareholders? The same industry interests that secured federal liability shields for vaccines in 1986 lobby statehouses for mandates. Major medical associations accept corporate funding while influencing national recommendations, a textbook conflict of interest. And a growing ecosystem of astroturf advocacy (e.g., groups partnering directly with manufacturers) amplifies pro-mandate messaging inside legislative hearings while posing as grassroots voices. As shown in the photo below, American Families for Vaccines and its state chapters partner with vaccine manufacturers while lobbying for mandates, another textbook conflict of interest.
American Families for Vaccines’ State Chapters work “hand in hand” with partners “guided by the common good.”
The Shift is Underway
Does the state or a private employer have the right to tell you what to inject into your body or your child’s? From the courtroom to the capitol, the tide is turning toward informed consent:
- Mississippi: a federal court required recognition of religious exemptions for school vaccination, an unmistakable legal check on one-size-fits-all mandates.
- West Virginia: the new governor issued an executive order directing a process for religious and conscientious exemptions in K–12 schools and regulated child care.
- Idaho: enacted the Idaho Medical Freedom Act (S1210) to protect citizens from compelled medical interventions.
- California and New York: lawsuits are underway, contesting statutes that withhold educational opportunities unless students are vaccinated.
- Florida: state leaders announced plans to eliminate all vaccine mandates, including school requirements, returning decisions to families and individuals.
Bottom Line
These milestones mark a constitutional and cultural correction: restoring informed consent as the baseline for public policy. The path forward is clear: protect parental authority, prohibit coercion, and ensure no government or private actor can force a medical decision. Mississippi shows the courts will defend it; West Virginia and Idaho show executives and legislatures can enact it; California and New York show the fight is active in the nation’s largest states; and Florida charts the next frontier. It’s time to finish the job.
Along with disclosure of the risks and benefits of a medical intervention, informed consent demands voluntariness, including the uncoerced right to refuse.
What can State Lawmakers Do?
While restoration of religious freedom should be celebrated in states that have denied access to education because of vaccination, medical interventions should always be opt in, not opt out. Medical coercion is morally wrong and ethically indefensible. We invite you to review and introduce Stand for Health Freedom’s Model Medical Freedom Act, to restore informed consent, prohibit coercive mandates, and protect access to work, school, and services.
For further information on this topic and more, see our Guarding Liberty page, just for you, here. We stand ready to be a resource as you consider this critical legislation.
“Every last one of them [vaccine mandates] is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery. Who am I as a government or as a man standing here now to tell you what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your child should put in [their] body? I don’t have that right. Your body is a gift from God.”
Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo
Guarding Liberty, Stand for Health Freedom’s lawmaker newsletter, provides essential insight into the current forces influencing medical freedom, constitutional rights, and informed consent.
