Quarantine and Constitutional Rights

One very simple principle [justifies state coercion]. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interference with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

John Stuart Mill (1856)
********
Forced vaccination programs are inherently unconstitutional, quarantines are not.

While no person may be stripped of his liberty without due process, there have always been people who (A) pose a health threat to the public at large because they are carriers of a contagious disease and (B) have demonstrated a wanton disregard for the safety of others by refusing to comply with reasonable precautions to prevent transmitting their disease to others.

H1N1 influenza is a lousy example of a disease which would justify quarantine for a number of reasons.

It appears to be much harder to transmit than regular influenza and it does not seem to be all that easy to determine just who has it.

It seems very ironic that Massachusetts would chose THIS particular disease as the justification for enacting what is certain to be a VERY controversial law.

But the principle of the state's right to quarantine certain individuals for the safety of the public is well established, constitutional, and, I believe, completely justified.

Could it be abused?
Could it be irrationally and unfairly administered?
Of course! It already has been.

HIV/AIDS and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis are just two examples of diseases that pose a MUCH greater threat to the health, safety, and economy of our nation. And yet because they are associated with two politically protected groups (homosexuals and illegal immigrants) there has been virtually no effort to quarantine those infected.

But the primary danger of THIS law is in the precedent that it would set for vaccinating minors.
Unfortunately, this is based on the state's claim to priority over a parent in protecting all children. The state has claimed to be the super parent of ALL children, with the ultimate responsibility for their health and safety. This may seem to be a rather innocuous assertion when it is used to take a child from a parent who has beaten, raped, or starved them.
But if you grant the state the right to protect a child from abuse and neglect, even at the hands of their own parents, they now have supplanted the parent as the ultimate guardian of that child's rights IN ALL MATTERS.

Parental rights become subject to the whims of the state.
To believe that the family can maintain any type of autonomy in that situation is naive.