The Medical Freedom Act: Preserving Liberty for the Next 250 Years
As America reflects on 250 years of liberty, we must consider not only the freedoms our founders secured, but also the rights that have been steadily surrendered in the generations since. As October marks Vaccine Injury Awareness Month, a new federal initiative to investigate vaccine injuries offers an opportunity to examine not only the suffering of those harmed, but also the decades-long erosion of individual rights that helped create the system we have today.
How did a nation founded on individual liberty arrive at a system in which government can compel medical interventions while those injured struggle to obtain recognition, treatment, and compensation?
Few examples illustrate this contradiction more clearly than the history of compulsory vaccination laws and the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA).
Part Six│Vaccine Injury and the Slow Erosion of American Liberty
For decades, Americans have been assured that serious vaccine-associated injury or death is exceedingly rare. Yet in 1986, Congress established a federal compensation program recognizing that vaccines can cause serious injury and death. By the early 1980s, state compulsory childhood vaccination laws had created a dilemma Congress could no longer ignore. State governments required children to receive vaccines to attend school, yet those same vaccines carried recognized, serious, life-threatening risks. Families whose children suffered injuries sought accountability through the courts, resulting in mounting litigation against vaccine manufacturers.
Congressman Henry Waxman, principal sponsor of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA), openly acknowledged the connection between compulsory vaccination and vaccine injury. In an October 1986 op-ed, Waxman observed that every state required childhood vaccinations for school attendance and conceded that vaccines “are inherently unsafe.” He described vaccine-injured children as being “hurt in the line of public duty.”
Waxman’s comments exposed the troubling nature of Congress’s response: rather than reconsider the compulsory vaccination laws that exposed children to known risks of serious injury or death, Congress enacted the NCVIA, preserving the system of mandates while shielding vaccine manufacturers from the mounting litigation. The Act established a federal compensation program for injured individuals while restricting their ability to pursue traditional legal remedies through the courts. Ultimately, the financial burden of compensating vaccine-related injuries and deaths shifted away from manufacturers to a federal system funded by excise taxes on vaccines, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
The result: compulsory vaccination laws remained unchallenged, vaccine manufacturers gained liability protections, injured children and adults faced increasingly restricted avenues for legal redress, vaccine-associated injuries and deaths became increasingly difficult to acknowledge, and those who refused vaccination faced growing hostility and discrimination.
A New Federal Initiative: An Opportunity for Accountability
Forty years and more than five billion dollars in compensated vaccine injuries later, the problem of vaccine injury continues to plague the federal government, particularly in the aftermath of COVID-19 vaccination and the challenges surrounding the underfunded Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). Notably, the COVID-19 era also ushered in unprecedented vaccination mandates, accompanied by widespread hostility, discrimination, and exclusion directed at those who exercised their right to refuse vaccination.
In October 2026, HHS and NIH announced new efforts to investigate health problems following vaccination, improve adverse event reporting, and strengthen research into potential vaccine injuries. The initiative offers an opportunity to address longstanding concerns about vaccine injury by improving the recognition and investigation of adverse reactions, identifying risk factors, and advancing treatment options.
But scientific investigation alone cannot resolve the underlying problem created by compulsory medical interventions. Compensation after an injury cannot restore lost health, and better injury reporting cannot replace the right to informed consent.
When Medical Mandates Replace Individual Choice
The consequences of compulsory vaccination laws extend far beyond vaccine safety. Informed consent, a principle that includes the right to refuse medical treatment, must be the foundation of every medical decision. Individuals must be free to weigh potential benefits and risks without coercion, threats of job loss, or government-imposed penalties.
No government compensation program can restore the right to informed consent once it has been denied. Nor should the promise of compensation come at the expense of another fundamental protection: the constitutional right to seek justice through the courts. The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases, a safeguard that must not be overlooked in the pursuit of public health policy.
The COVID-19 era demonstrated just how far the erosion of these liberties could extend. Vaccination requirements became conditions of employment, education, travel, and participation in ordinary life. What began as compulsory childhood vaccination requirements evolved into a much broader acceptance of government control over personal medical decisions, accompanied by diminished legal protections for those who suffered harm.
Preserving liberty requires defending every right, not sacrificing one to accommodate the violation of another. The right to informed consent, the right to refuse medical interventions without penalty, and the right to seek redress through the courts are essential safeguards against government overreach.
The question is no longer simply whether a particular vaccine is beneficial or harmful. It is whether your government should possess the power to compel any medical intervention in the first place.
As America reflects on 250 years of liberty, the responsibility before us is not merely to acknowledge how these freedoms have eroded, but to ensure that future generations never experience the same abuses. The Medical Freedom Act offers states a legislative means of protecting voluntary medical decision-making and preventing government-imposed medical mandates. Safeguarding access to the courts must remain part of the broader commitment to preserving individual rights.
The next 250 years of American liberty will depend upon our willingness to defend the rights entrusted to us, including those that have been compromised in the name of public health.
As you consider how best to preserve liberty for future generations in your unique role as a state lawmaker, we encourage you to support, or introduce, the Medical Freedom Act in your state. Stand for Health Freedom is available to provide model legislation, legal analysis, and policy resources to assist you in advancing these protections.
For further information on this policy position and more, see our Guarding Liberty page, just for you. We stand ready to be a resource as you consider this critical legislation.
If you have questions or would like additional research or legislative resources, please contact Jill Hines at jill@standforhealthfreedom.com.
