Category: Healthcare

The Right to Choose

I have always supported a woman’s right to choose whether to complete a pregnancy up to the point at which another person (her fetus) acquires existence and thus the protection of the law. In my view a fetus becomes a person when viable, i.e. when they are able to live outside the womb. In my opinion, laws that permit abortions that comply with that standard, should not force those who disagree to pay for such abortions. Thus I do not support allowing the Armed services to pay for its member’s wanting an abortion for the travel and related expenses of the abortion. Tax payers should not be forced to pay for such individual choices.

A similar argument has been made about taxpayer funding of elementary education. A Jewish taxpayer should not have to pay for a catholic child’s education in a catholic school or visa versa. But I also favor school choice. How do I defend this use of taxpayer’s money? An abortion up to the allowed age of the fetus is an individual choice. But elementary education is required for all children in the public interest. Thus, it is appropriate that the government (taxpayers) pay for it. But, providing public (i.e. taxpayer’s) money for each child’s education can and should leave the choice of school to each parent. It is appropriate that schools eligible to receive public funds meet minimum standards of curriculum to be covered. School choice not only maximizes the freedom of choice among parents with different religious beliefs and views on the most effect approach to education, but the competition among schools improves the over quality of education. https://wcoats.blog/2021/05/09/the-great-divide-who-decides/

Abortion

Views on abortion have always been difficult to reconcile. Under our constitution, anyone born here is a citizen and has all of the rights of all other citizens. But when does a human fetus or embryo become a person with such rights? The question can be most challenging when the rights of two people—the mother and the fetus—conflict. My own view is that a fetus obtains the status of person with the right to protection, when it is viable, i.e., capable of living when removed from the womb.

The recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that an embryo is a person that must enjoy the protections of the law, moves the goal post to a whole new level. Dr. Ito Briones (MD, Ph.D) argues that, if that is true and applied into practical terms, then women will be subject to a whole new level of restrictions on their behavior in the interest of the unborn person. His interesting observations follow:

The recent ruling by the Alabama supreme court to equate the embryo as a person started when embryos frozen in tubes were accidentally destroyed in a fertility clinic. The parents sued the clinic based on Alabama’s  law of “wrongful death of a minor’s act”. The lower courts said that this law does not apply but the Alabama Supreme Court overturned that decision. And so here we are.

As a practical consequence of this ruling, IVF clinics in Alabama have expectedly suspended treatments. There are already numerous outlets online and in the news that discuss this topic and so I will not discuss this here anymore. Unfortunately, there are also other unintended consequences from this decision that might turn the mundane day to day life of a woman into a dystopian mess.

Here are other issues that may need to be considered because of this ruling. 

  1. Is a restaurant owner liable for serving alcohol to a pregnant woman even if she didn’t know she was pregnant and does not inform the establishment? Presently, restaurants and stores can be held legally liable if they serve or sell alcohol to minors. The liability is valid even if they were not aware of the age status of the patron. To solve this issue, restaurants ask for an ID to confirm age. Does this mean women should also be required to show a negative pregnancy test before being served any alcohol? 
  • Coffee has been scientifically proven to be harmful to the embryo. Do women also have to show a negative pregnancy test before being served coffee? Caffeine is the main culprit in harming embryos and caffeine is also present in tea, chocolate, soft drinks and other foodstuff. Should the government limit the sale of these items to women?
  • How about pregnant women who have breast cancer or any cancer? Can they get treatment even if it will most probably harm if not kill the embryo? 

Before this ruling, a medical case of a pregnant woman with cancer will involve an intimate discussion with the woman, her husband and family, and the doctor. Because of this ruling, the government and law enforcement will have to join the already hypersensitive and impossible dilemma that she will face.

Additionally, any medical treatment on a pregnant woman will have to be reviewed by lawyers to make sure that the embryo’s rights are taken into consideration.

Medical studies have shown that stress on pregnant women may harm the embryo. Stress can induce sleepless nights, hypertension, loss of appetite or a tendency to overeat, headaches, etc. 

Can pregnant women (at any trimester including the first) work as nurses (exposing the embryo/child to harm) or police officers? Should women in these jobs show a monthly negative pregnancy test while at work?

Driving can be very stressful for the woman. Can pregnant women drive? 

Do women have to show a negative pregnancy test while enrolled in college?

By the way, is every miscarriage going to be handled as a possible homicide?

If I have any recommendation about this ruling it is that one should invest in pregnancy test kits soon. The stock value of these tests in the market will surely skyrocket. 

Should the State mandate or advise?

It depends of course. But in America, which was established to empower each individual to make their own decisions, the state should only regulate those individual activities that might harm others such as violating property rights. This attitude presumes that each of us cares more about our wellbeing than does anyone else and know better how to achieve it taking account of our differences in tastes, interests, and risk preferences. It has resulted in a society of more prosperous and happier members.

This can be contrasted with the view that the average person is not intelligent enough or self-motivated enough to maximize their potential and needs to be guided by smarter, wiser people.

A society in which each individual enjoys the maximum freedom of choice hardly means that the government has little or no role in our wellbeing. In addition to providing public safety, shared institutional and physical infrastructure development, and the adjudication and enforcement of contracts (the rule of law), government can contribute to the provision of the knowledge to help inform the individual choices we each make. I want to review two very different areas of government involvement that have reflected the above conflicting attitudes of the government’s best role—monetary policy and public health policy.

Section 8 of the US Constitution gives the federal government the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,…” Our twelve Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System carry out that mandate via a system of market determined prices of goods and services and an inflation target of 2%. While I would prefer a monetary policy in which currency was issued or redeemed at a fix price for a hard anchor (traditionally gold) in response to market demand (currency board rules), the Fed has behaved very well within its inflation targeting regime over the past two years (after keeping its policy interest rate too low until two years ago).

A successful inflation targeting policy requires keeping inflation expectations anchored to the target (2% in the US) so that economic wage and price decisions are made in light of that expectation. But todays’ policy actions are only fully felt over the next year or two (what Milton Friedman called “long and variable lags” in the effects of policy). Federal Reserve policy is implemented largely by setting the rate at which it supplies the money it creates to the market. If it sets that rate below the so called neutral rate, it must supply money to keep the rate low. If it sets the Fed Funds (and related) rate above the neutral rate, it must absorb money from the market to keep the rate high. Setting its policy interest rate is the lever by which it controls the rate at which the money supply grows. Each Federal Reserve President and Governor must evaluate all available information about economic activity most likely over the next one to two years and determine in like of that what monetary growth is most likely to result in 2 percent inflation over that period. If market participants believe that the Fed’s choice is most likely to result in achieving the stated target in the future, their wage and price decisions will anticipate that inflation and thus bring it about.

It should be obvious that if Fed officials are honest it attempting to achieve their target and explain as fully as they themselves understand the prospects to the public and the public has confidence in the Fed’s commitment, this is the best that can be done. In fact, the Fed deserves high marks for such transparency in our uncertain and evolving world. Each person and firm make their own forward looking decisions in light of their best guesses of future conditions. The Fed’s guidance is the best and most the Fed can do to bring or keep inflation on target.  

When governments don’t trust “the people” to make their own decisions (they are not smart enough or are two lazy or whatever), they must mandate the “proper” behavior. Consider our approach to the public’s health during the Covid pandemic. Whether government should offer advice and provide information on what is known about a disease such as Covid-19 is complicated by the fact that we should not be free to expose others to communicable diseases. In the case of Covid the government’s understanding of its nature and best protection grew and evolved over time. But the US public heath agencies lost credibility from the beginning by telling well intentioned lies.

“In early March 2020, Dr. Fauci said ‘there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.’ In the same interview he said people could wear masks if they liked, but they wouldn’t get perfect protection, and it would further pinch what at the time was a short supply of masks for doctors and nurses.” PolitiFact | Marco Rubio says Anthony Fauci lied about masks. Fauci didn’t.

But more to my point, CDC officials thought that their shut down and isolation mandates would be more effective than allowing individuals to determine how best to protect themselves and others. The subsequent evidence suggested that they were wrong. Any benefits were outweighed by very substantial costs. Read the following articles and studies for examples.

Scott Atlas on Lies

“I explore the association between the severity of lockdown policies in the first half of 2020 and mortality rates. Using two indices from the Blavatnik Centre’s COVID-19 policy measures and comparing weekly mortality rates from 24 European countries in the first halves of 2017–2020, addressing policy endogeneity in two different ways, and taking timing into account, I find no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development.” https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?login=false  

“The most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures. The most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less-restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs)….

“After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country…. While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions.”  January 2021 study

Worrying About Mandates and Lockdowns as Delta Variant Hits Unvaccinated Californians

Lockdown Lessons Learned During Covid

We are two and a half years into the Covid-19 pandemic. Data has accumulated on the effectiveness of lockdowns in reducing deaths and of the costs associated with lockdowns. The overall effectiveness of lockdowns must consider both aspects. Moreover, lockdowns took different forms in different places—total, targeted, etc.  Dyani Lewis has provided a very careful review of the major studies of these data in Nature  “What Scientist have Learnt from Covid Lockdowns”

To overcome issues of correctly attributing deaths to Covid, excess deaths is generally used (excess from all causes each period over the recent—usually five year– average for the same period). “The pre-vaccine period of the pandemic does show that countries that acted harshly and swiftly — the ‘go hard, go fast’ approach — often fared better than those that waited to implement lockdown policies. China’s harsh lockdowns eliminated COVID-19 locally, for a time.” But the economic and public moral costs in China are very large and continue to mount. “The most effective measures were policies banning small gatherings and closing businesses and schools, closely followed by land-border restrictions and national lockdowns. Less-intrusive measures — such as government support for vulnerable populations, and risk-communication strategies — also had an impact. Airport health checks, however, had no discernible benefit….

“The impacts of lockdowns also differed from one pandemic wave to the next. By the time second waves emerged, so much had been learnt about the virus that people’s behaviour was quite different…. These changes dampened the extent to which countries benefited from lockdowns” because people adjusted on their own.

“There’s a fundamental difficulty with analysing the effects of COVID-19 lockdowns: it is hard to know what would have happened in their absence…. [Many studies] could have overstated the size of the benefit because it assumes that without lockdown mandates, people wouldn’t have reduced their social contacts. In reality, rising deaths would probably have changed people’s behaviour….

“And lockdown policies did bring costs. Although they delayed outbreaks, saving lives by allowing countries to hang on for vaccines and drugs, they also brought significant social isolation and associated mental-health problems, rising rates of domestic violence and violence against women, cancelled medical appointments and disruption to education for children and university students. And they were often (although not always) accompanied by economic downturns….

“Pure economic analyses of whether lockdowns were worth it generally try to estimate the value of lives saved and compare that with the costs of economic downturns. But there is no consensus on how to make this comparison…. Not all harms can be [objectively measured]. Loss of education because of school closures might indirectly harm children in the long run, potentially decreasing their future earnings and placing them at greater risk of poorer health outcomes…. Such harms are so far off — decades, in some cases.”

Learning the lessons that experience teaches us is very important when formulating public policy. But extracting those lessons can be difficult. Lewis’s summary is the best I have read, and I urge you to read it. I continue to believe that when we are provided the best understanding available (which obviously grows over time) we will each make the best decisions for ourselves and our families, striking the balance that is best for each of us.

What is appropriate to teach our kids?

Obviously, the knowledge and skills taught to kids should be appropriate to their age. At whatever age kids can meaningfully absorb the history and message of religions, for example (don’t ask me what age that is), the real question is what they should be taught about them. Given our constitutional separation of Church and State and our commitment to individual choice and the enriching benefits of a multiethnic population, public schools can not “teach Christianity”. But it is highly desirable to teach students about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the other major religions—their histories and beliefs. Parents have a right to be satisfied that what is taught fairly represents their religion.

At an appropriate age kids need to learn about races—about why some kids in the room are black, white, brown, and yellow. At an appropriate, presumably older age, they need to learn the history of these races and especially slavery as it is particularly relevant in America, as are Chinese rail road workers and the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

At appropriate ages kids also need to learn about how their bodies function and how to keep them healthy. As they approach puberty, they will want to know all about what is going on in their bodies. If they are not given this information in the classroom, they will seek it elsewhere. Current controversies over teaching information about sexuality and sexual functions to kids at the age needing and wanting such information and over the availability of affinity clubs for young teenagers to discusses these pressing questions, reflects, in my view, two serious mistakes in confronting this issue. The first is to overlook or deny that kids will seek out what ever information they can about every aspect of sex whether presented in the classroom or not. The second serious mistake is the claim that teaching about homosexuality and providing clubs in which kids can discuss their questions about it with their piers will recruit heterosexual students to join up with the gays as if being gay is so desirable. We cannot chose our sexual orientation.

I want to focus on the second of these. We are born with our sexual attractions. We are not and cannot be recruited from it to its opposite. The survival of the species requires that most people are heterosexual and happy to procreate and so overwhelmingly most people are heterosexual. Those who are not are acutely aware that their attractions are not the norm. As they attempt to establish their goals for their lives, most homosexuals try to hide from, or deny to, themselves that they are different. Most would rather not be. But they cannot change the facts. Their goal should be to accept the facts and carry on building the most fulfilling lives possible. This is much easier today than earlier because of honest and factual classroom information and public role models of successful gay men and lesbian women.

Sixty-five years ago as I struggled to sort out my own attractions (yes I know that that was a rather long time ago and a different world) I did not know any, or of any, gay people as models or better still to talk to. There was no Will and Grace, or Peter Buttigieg, or Peter Thiel, or Lily Tomlin. I had only heard of child molesters—bad people who were run out of town. I hated what I felt. It threatened to destroy the life I hoped to have. So I buried it away for many year at the cost of considerable internal pain. What a relief it would have been to have learn in class that some people are just that way and can have otherwise normal lives.

Thus, it is quite distressing to me that some poorly informed parents are rising up against such instruction. While I assume that they mean well, I see their actions as child abuse. They mistakenly believe that homosexuality is a choice. They understandably don’t want their child to make that choice. But it is not a choice. We often say that God made us homosexual, and we chose to be gay.

All children need the facts about the various urges god gave us and help with their struggle to accept their own sexual orientation and to fit in with the rest of society. Clubs at which they can socialize and feel comfortable and discuss the fact of their homosexuality can be a helpful part of their development. Despite the enormous progress in public understanding, ignorance persists in some quarters on which the Washington Post gives an interesting report:

Flyers at school advertising Safe Place club meetings, “set off a wave of parent anger and rumors that Safe Place club advisers including Melissa Panico, a teacher who has LGBTQ children, would “indoctrinate” students.

“Spurred by these concerns, legislatures in at least 19 states have passed or are considering laws that bar discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for younger children while limiting teaching on those topics for older students….

 “’Safe Space’ signs had to come down. The posters were ‘political in nature,’ he wrote, and might cause ‘disruption to the learning environment.’ The signs could run afoul of two legal considerations, he added: ‘One, will what is posted or worn be seen as indoctrinating our students to believe or think in a certain way. Two, would we allow anything that represents the opposite viewpoint?’” It is hard to believe that these were the words of an adult educator.  “Gay-straight alliance-indoctrination-school club”

Progress has been made but we still have a ways to go:

“When Sen. Barry Goldwater, dubbed “Mr. Conservative,” learned that his grandson and grandniece were gay, he worked for new laws that would protect their civil rights. When Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House, and his lesbian half-sister, Candace, became a gay activist, he took a more neutral stance. “It’s a free country,” he told the press. State Sen. William “Pete” Knight has been estranged from his son since learning four years ago he is gay.

“And now, Dick and Lynne Cheney are faced with their decision, how to handle in public what is essentially a private matter: the sexual orientation of their daughter, Mary.”  “The Cheney’s”

Roe vs Wade

The debate for and against the legality of abortion has been around as long as I have, i.e., for a very long time. Quoting from Justice Alito’s leaked draft of a possible court decision: “For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitu­tion, each State was permitted to address this issue in ac­cordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.” “Alito draft annotated”

Should the Supreme Court rescind Roe vs Wade, it would not make abortions illegal or necessarily restrict when they would be allowed. The current standard is that an abortion is permissible before the fetus becomes viable (likely to live if delivered). What rescinding Roe vs Wade would do is return the determination of the rules on abortion to the elected representatives in each state.  I have always been “pro-choice”, but I also believe that policy in a democracy should be determined by voters and their representative. I am comfortable with either a state-by-state determination or a federal determination, but I would like to see the status quo preserved. By that I do not mean that Roe vs Wade should be upheld, as it is simply an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution as Alito correctly claims: “even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning.”

As Alito has also explained: “The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of ‘liberty.’ Roe’s defenders char­acterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recog­nized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different.”  The Fourteenth Amendment provided for the protection of equal rights for all people. What any two straight, white people can do, black and/or gay people have the right to do as well, such as marry.

The almost hysterical reaction to the possibility of overturning Roe vs Wade is unwarranted. It will not make abortions illegal. As Alito stated: “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Development with Dignity

Human dignity is the central focus of a fascinating new book written by Tom Palmer and Matt Warner Development with Dignity–Self-determination, Localization, and the end to Poverty.  They spotlight the treatment of every person with the dignity due all people as a critical factor in unleashing the innovation and entrepreneurship that has dramatically raised the standard of living to virtually the whole world over the last three hundred years after thousands of years of no progress. The book is rich with interesting examples.

Palmer and Warner argue that the top-down approach of most development agencies and aid projects of “teaching them how we do it in our developed countries,” often fails as a result of overlooking and/or ignoring the knowledge and ways of social organization found in the local communities aid is meant to uplift.  Such knowledge is important to understand where the problems are and what is working well in a community. Any improvements must start from there and be embraced by the people we want to help. The IMF calls this “ownership.” It must start with treating every individual with dignity.

A wonderful example of the importance of understanding and building from local knowledge and practices is provided by Jennifer Brick Martazashvili and Ilia Martazashvili in their recent book on common law property rights in the villages of Afghanistan: “Land, the State, and War –Property Institutions and Political Order in Afghanistan.”  They argue very convincingly that the common law traditions of many Afghan villages can provide satisfactory property rights until there is a central government that can be trusted and has sufficient administrative capacity to administer the registration of legal land titles.

Both books reflect an attitude toward individuals and the importance of their agency for prosperous, liberal societies. I am struck by the similarity of attitudes in the above approaches to development aid and our approaches to social welfare in the United States. Our Federal, State, and local governments provide a wide range of programs to assist the poor or temporarily unemployed.  The food stamp program, for example, epitomizes the attitude that people “on the dole” can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about how to use such assistance. I don’t want to ignore the fact that there are people we shouldn’t trust to make their own decisions (drug addicts, the emotionally unstable, etc.). But the view that government can make better decisions about how food aid should be used than the hungry who receive it is at the heart of the Palmer – Warner discussion about the importance of dignity.

Those of us who support Universal Basic Incomes (UBI) are on the side of those who believe that most people know better than government bureaucrats or even well-meaning social workers what their needs are–i.e., how best to spend their money. UBI payments are made to every person with no strings attached. Unlike current unemployment assistance and other safety net programs UBI would not diminish the financial incentive to work, though the incentives to work include more than just money. With a UBI any additional income from work is kept. The UBI is not reduced by work. See my: “Our Social Safety Net”

Pilot tests of the impact on recipients and on their incentives to work are being carried out in a number of countries and cities with generally very promising results. A two year pilot that was recently concluded in the Washington DC area is typical:

“Placing money into people’s hands without restrictions empowered them to address their needs, program administrators said, and removed the typical layers of bureaucracy and eligibility requirements that can frustrate recipients and hamper the effectiveness of aid efforts. The study’s quantitative and qualitative data showed that “participants often struck a thoughtful balance between addressing immediate survival concerns like paying rent and longer-term concerns like accumulation of debt,” analysts concluded. Recipients surveyed for the study, which was released Thursday, reported lower rates of mental health stressors and food insecurity than people with comparable incomes in the District and nationally.” “Guaranteed basic income-dc-poverty thrive”

When Universal Basic Incomes are combined with the replacement of income taxes (both individual and corporate) by a flat consumption tax, the result is a nicely progressive tax rate relative to income. See rough estimates here:  “Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income” It also simplifies the process of financing the government expenditures that we want.

Trusting the choices of individuals about their own lives doesn’t mean that we (government or private institutions) shouldn’t offer information to help inform and guide their choices. But it does mean that we do not make those choices for them. We give them the dignity with which free societies can and have flourished.

Where Does Senator Josh Hawley Stand?

Upon what basis should we make our decisions to do or not do something? Upon what basis should the government take the right to make decisions for us? The quality of our individual choices depends on the values and principles that guild us. These profoundly influence the quality of our lives in our given or chosen societies.  I have discussed this issue before:  “The great divide-who decides” 

The issue of Covid-19 vaccination mandates and related issues are currently providing vivid and noisy examples of these questions. A few of my reactionary libertarian friends (in contrast with more thoughtful libertarians) insist that it is their right to decide whether to get vaccinated or not. Perhaps, but it is not their right to knowingly infect others (the freedom to swing my fist ends at your face). Specifically, the unvaccinated do not have the right to be where they are not wanted or permitted by private establishments. Businesses (restaurants, theaters, sports events, etc.) should have the right to determine who they serve (subject to the sometimes problematic limitations imposed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act Virtually all such businesses wisely go out of their way to reassure potential customers that they are save places to visit. This generally takes the form of mandating that their employees and customers are vaccinated for Covid. In my opinion the government, in addition to collecting and disseminating the best possible information on Covid risks and how to minimize them, should protect the freedom of businesses to make Covid policies they consider appropriate to their own business and should mandate that all of the government’s own employees be vaccinated. Only specific health issues should qualify for potential exemption. Religious and other beliefs should not.

Sports, and the Beijing Winter Olympics in particular, also raise the issue of who decides to participate in the face of serious Chinese human rights violations. I generally think that sporting competitions should not be influenced by politics. So, should athletes participate in the upcoming winter Olympics and who should decide?

In his December 9 column in the Washington Post Josh Rogin makes a strong case for each of us to speak out against violations of our principles: “Enes Kanter Freedom takes bold stance on China” “’We must always take sides,’ Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. ‘Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.’”

President Biden recently declared a diplomatic boycott of the China games, meaning that the U.S. government will have no representatives there, though the American Olympic teams and individual athletes are free to make their own decisions. The Economist reported that “France will not join the partial boycott that America, Australia, Britain and Canada are calling against the Beijing Winter Olympics in protest at China’s treatment of its Uyghur minority and of Peng Shuai, a tennis star. President Emmanuel Macron complained that the Anglophone countries’ merely withholding diplomatic representation—while their athletes compete—is not an effective way to alter China’s objectionable policies.” “The Economist Morning Brief”

“Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., [also] ridiculed the Biden move, echoing Hagerty’s claim that the diplomatic boycott did not go far enough.  ‘A diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics is a joke,’ Hawley told the Daily Caller Monday. ‘China doesn’t care if Biden and his team show up. They want our athletes.’”  In short, Hawley wants a presidential mandate forbidding participation of American athletes in the Beijing Winter games. “Republicans blast Biden apos diplomatic”

On the other hand, Sen. Hawley opposes President Biden’s proposed mandate that every eligible person must receive an approved Covid-19 vaccination.  “Senator Hawley-Biden vaccine mandate shows contempt for religious liberty”  In this area the good Senator puts “choice” over “life.”  With regard to abortion Senator Hawley sides with “life” over “choice.”

“U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) issued a statement in support of Missourians who traveled to Washington, D.C., today to participate in the 46th Annual March for Life. The group of nearly 3,000 Missourians represented all ages, from high schoolers to retirees and came from all over the state including Cape Girardeau, Jefferson City, Kansas City, Sedalia and St. Louis.

“’It’s incredible to see people of all ages and backgrounds, from Missouri and across the country, who have made the trek to our nation’s capital to speak their hearts, their minds, their faith – to tell their elected leaders that this nation was founded on the dignity of every person and that every life is worth fighting for,’ said Senator Hawley. ‘I am proud to stand for the right to life. Always.’”

“Senator Hawley commends missourians participating in march for life”

Where is Senator Hawley coming from and where is he going?  Regarding health and vaccination against Covid-19, Hawley is “pro choice” rather than “pro life.” Regarding the abortion of non-viable fetuses, Hawley is pro (potential) life rather than pro choice.  What are the principles guiding when he is one and when he is the other (beyond political expediency)? When should government mandate our choices and when not?

Our Right to be Free

Our country was founded and has prospered on the proposition “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” We jealously guard our individual liberty. We are free to decide what we want to do and how we want to do it. This liberty is subject to two major conditions: we must live with the consequences of our choices and actions, and our actions cannot interfere with the same exercise of freedom by others. We never fully live up to these high principles, but they do define the goals we continue to and should continue to aim for.

When our actions or circumstance fail to sustain us, we do step in to help those in distress, whether from family obligations or friendships or a government administered social safety net. We continue to debate and refine its features.

Determining the boundary between those actions I am free to choose, and those that unacceptably affect others is not always easy. Walking in public naked is not acceptable in most societies (except at designated nude beaches). While this would not infringe on the freedom of others to behave as they want, it would “force” them to see something they do not want to see.

I chose this example because it does not fall neatly into something purely private that I have a right to do (walking around my home naked) or something clearly and obviously damaging to others that I do not have a right to do (driving my car through my neighbor’s garden).  In the realm of social norms, I can walk in public dressed in many ways depending on the society I am in.  A man might freely walk around in a dress (if he chooses the neighborhood carefully) without getting knocked down in some societies but not in others. Such social norms are important in defining and guiding acceptable public behavior and they vary across societies and over time. Such norms are continuously debated.

But clearly my freedom to swing my fist ends where your face begins. If you are infected with a contagious disease, you do not have the freedom to walk around potentially infecting others even in the most libertarian of societies (e.g., lower Manhattan). I assume that anyone sick with Covid-19 knows that she must isolate/quarantine herself.

But what about someone who doesn’t feel sick but hasn’t been vaccinated?

Any establishment has the right to require that only vaccinated people work or shop there and/or wear face masks. And I certainly have the right to attend only those performances or eat in those restaurants that impose these requirements. These are implications of freedom.

Surely everyone understands and accepts these propositions.  So why is there such controversy over wearing masks and getting vaccinated? I don’t know the answer to this question but will suggest a few factors that I think are important. That such health issues have become so politicized is almost more distressing than the fact that in the United States 728,000 people have died from Covid-19 by October 10, 2021.

One reason is that some people are pushing back on being told what to do by the government. Such behavior is common in freedom loving children but rather unseemly in adults. Another is that vaccines were developed with miraculous speed and their effectiveness and potential side effects are not yet fully known. None the less the evidence is overwhelming that being vaccinated significantly increases your prospects of living and surviving the infection compared to those who are unvaccinated. Another is that during the Trump administration medical policy and advice became quite politicized. Many of us, often with good reason, stopped trusting the messages from the CDC and FDA. And to this day government messaging remains poor. Rather than offering advice based on the most recent evidence (which can change over time) and the reasons for those recommendations, government pronouncements are often confusing and sometimes sound like demands. Many of us have lost trust in the government’s pronouncements. Unfortunately, some people have put their trust in unreliable sources of information and even, in some cases, in deliberately malicious sources (and we can’t always blame Russia). 

Where our choices and actions affect only ourselves, we should be free to do as we like and benefit (or suffer) from the outcome. Where our actions affect others, more or less directly, social norms and government rules should limit our choices. In societies where its citizens live by the golden rule and respect these norms, beneficial behavior is followed voluntarily — enforcement is not a serious problem.  We must determine the sources of information that we trust carefully and based on such information we must treat our neighbors with the respect we expect from them.

Protecting our freedom is critical but it is not enough. We must also exercise it virtuously. The “fusion” of freedom and virtue has been (most of the time) the basis of American success. We seem at risk of losing both. Get vaccinated now for everyone’s benefit. Please.

Vaccine Passports

Discussions of the pros and cons of mandated lock downs to stop (or slow) the spread of Covid-19 often miss the most important point. The key factor in restraining the spread of a contagious disease (beyond vaccines, basic public health measures, etc.) is the behavior of each one of us. Given our respective risk preferences the question is whether we adjust our behavior sensibly to protect ourselves and others from infection? Our behavior may be responding to government mandates to close restaurants, theaters, and factories or it may be responding to information provided by public health experts on the nature of the risks and measures to mitigate them. In the latter case our experience and that of our neighbors will depend importantly on the quality of the information provided and our trust in its efficacy. Our individual choices allow responses that are more suited to the individual situation of each actor.  “The unnecessary fight over covid-19”

In short, if governments were to say, “do whatever you want, but these are the risks as we understand them,” people would not necessarily rush to the concert hall, or baseball game, or hop on a plane. “Sports fans live attendance poll”  Offices, factories, restaurants and entertainment venues must convince their workers and customers that they have taken reasonable steps to be safe from Covid-19 (or other risks). Thus, comparing the results (infections and economic output) of lock down with no (or mild) lock down countries is not the right test.

We need to focus attention on the quality of the information being provided to the public, the public’s trust of such information, and the efficacy of the measures being taken by those offering reasons to gather in public places to enhance its safety. Those who have had Covid-19 or who have been vaccinated for it face minimum risk of catching it (again) or of spreading it and can pretty safely attend public events. Thus, a trustworthy way of establishing that fact would be very useful. I carry my vaccine certificate wherever I go but they are relatively easy to counterfeit if it became useful to do so. Thus, the reason behind the various projects to develop so called vaccine passports (better named vaccine certificates) is obvious.

The technical design, including privacy protections, raise more issues than you might at first imagine, including establishing interoperability standards and access to public records. However, the position taken by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis defies understanding by those of us who place our individual freedom in first place. He stated that: “We are not supporting doing any vaccine passports in the state of Florida…. It’s completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply be able to participate in normal society.”  “Biden vaccine passports-DeSantis”  This is incredibly wrong. Restaurants now serving indoors already test our temperature before allowing us to enter. I visited my credit union in the IMF building in downtown Washington, DC today and they took my temperature as well. If gatherings are not convincingly safe, sensible people won’t attend. Countries requiring arriving passengers from other countries with a high incidence of Covid-19 infections to quarantine for two weeks would presumably wave that requirement for passengers with a credible vaccine certificate.

It is hard to imagine that the public accommodation clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would require a restaurant to admit and serve a customer with a contagious disease. But there are privacy and other technical concerns with implementing a reliable certificate of a covid vaccine. “The next front in the pandemic culture wars vaccine passports” The benefits to the economy and our freedoms are significant enough to make the effort to overcome them.