A cikin Maris 4, 2025, yanke shawara (Jeremiah Hogan et al. v. Lincoln Medical Partners et al.), Kotun Koli ta Maine ta yanke hukuncin cewa ma’aikatan da suka gudanar da allurar rigakafin Covid-19 ga ƙaramin yaro ba tare da izinin iyaye ba ba su da kariya daga abubuwan da ke haifar da batir da sakaci a ƙarƙashin Dokar Shirye-shiryen Jama'a da Gaggawa (PREP).
The Hogan hukuncin ya biyo bayan hukuncin kotun kolin Vermont a cikin sa Politella yanke shawara, wanda ya haɗa da irin wannan yanayin na ƙaramin alurar riga kafi ba tare da izinin iyaye ba, yanke hukunci cewa "mutane da aka rufe" a ƙarƙashin Dokar PREP ba su da kariya.
Dokar PREP ba ta, ta sharuddan ta, ta bayyana cewa ta tsawaita rigakafi fiye da raunin allurar rigakafi don keta haƙƙin tsarin mulki na iyaye don yanke shawarar likita ga 'ya'yansu. Kotun Maine, kamar Vermont Supremes, ta yi amfani da Dokar PREP zuwa "preempt" na tarayya har ma da iƙirarin baturi na jiha.
Baturi azabtarwa ce da gangan. Wato ko da a tilasta Za a kiyaye allurar rigakafin ta waɗannan yanke shawara daga ayyukan dokar farar hula na jiha da iyakance iyaye zuwa murmurewa kawai a ƙarƙashin Dokar PREP (wanda ke ba da mafita kawai lokacin da mutuwa ko mummunan rauni na jiki ya haifar).
Idan an fassara dokar PREP, kamar yadda a cikin waɗannan yanke shawara guda biyu, don ɓoye haƙƙin iyaye, to tambaya ta biyu ta taso: shin Dokar PREP ce, don haka ana amfani da ita, kanta ba bisa ka'ida ba saboda ya ketare haƙƙoƙin da tsarin mulki ya kafa da ke buƙatar kotuna su yi amfani da tsattsauran bincike? Kotun Vermont a cikin Politella ya kauce wa wannan muhimmin bincike, amma Maine Hogan hukunci ba. Kotun ta yi magana da wannan a shafi na 3 game da 1) hakkokin iyaye da 2) mutuncin jiki. Na tabbatar da cewa Kotun Maine ta yi amfani da dokar tsarin mulki a kan batutuwan biyu.
Hakkokin iyaye
The Hogan Shawarar ta bayyana cewa, “…haƙƙin iyaye na yanke shawara game da kulawa da kula da ’ya’yansu… ba cikakke ba ne… kuma gwamnatin tarayya tana da sha’awar kafa doka don magance matsalolin lafiyar jama’a, duba. Roman Kath. Diocese na Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 US 14, 18 (2020) ("Tsarin yaduwar COVID-19 babu shakka sha'awa ce mai karfi..."). Mun cimma matsaya ɗaya ko ƙa'idar tana ƙarƙashin tushe mai ma'ana ko kuma bita mai tsauri. Duba Jacobson v. Commonwealth na Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905) (amfani da bincike-bincike na ma'ana don sanin ko buƙatun rigakafin jihar ya kasance bisa tsarin mulki); Pitts da Moore.
Kotun ta karkatar da dokar tsarin mulkin tarayya don cimma wannan matsaya, kuma ta yi aiki biyu kurakurai.
a) An nuna kuskuren farko a cikin yaren "Tsarin yaduwar COVID-19 babu shakka sha'awa ce mai ban sha'awa..." Wannan na iya zama gaskiya, amma alurar riga kafi na Covid-19. ya yi ba hana yaɗuwar cututtuka, don haka Kotu tana ɗaukar matakai: yin amfani da ƙarshen ƙarshe na ƙarya. Kotun Jacobson ta gudanar da cikakken bincike kan ingancin rigakafin cutar sankarau da ba ya nan.
Kwanan nan an yi magana da wannan ta hanyar da'ira ta tara a cikin Asusun Tsaron 'Yanci na Lafiya, Inc., v Sufeto na Gundumar Makarantun Los Angeles United, Da'irar Tara (6/7/2024), wanda aka gudanar:
Masu gabatar da kara sun yi zargin cewa allurar ba ta hana yaduwa yadda ya kamata, amma tana rage bayyanar cututtuka ne kawai ga wanda aka samu. Kuma masu gabatar da kara sun ce wani abu da kawai ke yi na karshen, amma ba na farko ba, kamar magani ne, ba maganin alurar riga kafi na “gargajiya” ba.
(A lura cewa wannan shawarar ta Tara ta kasance daga baya ya sauka a ranar 4 ga Fabrairu, 2025, kuma ya kamata a karanta.)
Abin lura kuma shine Justice Collins' ra'ayi madaidaici a cikin wadanda aka bari a yanzu Asusun Kare 'Yancin Lafiya yanke shawara yarda da cewa Jacobson bai yi aiki ba kuma ya kara jaddada cewa "Dokar Kotun Koli ta haka ta fayyace cewa dole magani don amfanin lafiyar mutumin da aka bi da shi sabanin magani na tilas don amfanin lafiyar wasu yana haifar da ainihin 'yancin ƙin jinya. Zarge-zargen masu ƙara a nan sun isa su nemi wannan ainihin haƙƙin."
Don haka, allurar rigakafin Covid-19, ba su cika tursasawa gwajin sha'awar jihar da Kotun Maine ta gabatar ba. Wannan yana tunawa Jacobson's strident taka tsantsan cewa ba duk alluran rigakafi ba ne ake tsammanin lafiya:
"Kafin rufe wannan ra'ayi, muna ganin ya dace, don hana fahimtar ra'ayi game da ra'ayoyinmu, mu lura ... cewa ikon 'yan sanda na wata jiha, ko ta hanyar majalisa ko ta wata karamar hukuma da ke aiki a ƙarƙashin ikonta, na iya yin amfani da shi a cikin irin wannan yanayi ko kuma ta hanyar ka'idoji don sabani da zalunci a wasu lokuta don tabbatar da tsoma baki na kotu, kawai mu yanke hukunci da zalunci da kotu. cewa babu wani abu da ya bayyana karara da zai tabbatar da wannan kotu ta rike ta a matsayin wanda ya sabawa kundin tsarin mulkin kasa kuma ba ta aiki a aikace-aikacen da ta yi wa mai kara bisa kuskure.”
Hogan roba-tambayi maganin gwaji ba tare da yin komai ba Jacobson bincike, sannan yayi amfani da wannan shari'ar sosai duk da bayyanannen harshen da ya yi amfani da shi a takaice kuma musamman, hakika yana gargadin cewa dole ne a sanya ido sosai kan umarnin gwamnati na rigakafin.
b) Kuskure na biyu ta hanyar Hogan yanke shawara game da haƙƙin iyaye shine abin da ya kawo Jacobson, yanke shawara a cikin 1905, a matsayin ikon yin amfani da gwajin-tuni mai ma'ana. Amma duk da haka, tsananin gwajin gwajin bai samo asali ba a matsayin fikihu har sai da dadewa Jacobson. An gabatar da ra'ayin "matakan binciken shari'a," gami da bincike mai tsauri, a cikin Kafa 4 na hukuncin Kotun Koli na Amurka a Amurka v Carolene Products Co. (1938). A tarihi, ƙayyadaddun ƙayyadaddun tsarin binciken zamani bai fito ba sai a shekarun 1960, lokacin da ya sami tushe a lokaci guda a wurare da dama na koyarwa.
Kotun ta kara yin kuskure Jacobson ta hanyar kammala kuskuren cewa "buƙatun allurar rigakafi na jihar ya kasance bisa tsarin mulki." Jacobson bai yanke hukuncin cewa jihar na iya tilastawa-jab ko ma ba da umarnin yin allurar rigakafi ba - sakamakon Mista Jacobson shi ne ko dai ya dauki maganin furucin, ko kuma ya ya biya tara. Iyalan Hogan da Politella ba a ba su wannan zaɓi ba, kuma misfassara shari'ar 1905 ta yin watsi da wannan bambance-bambancen shari'a ce mara hankali.
Mutuncin Jiki
The Hogan shawarar ta maimaita kuskuren sa na Jacobson lokacin da aka kammala:
"Game da ikirari na Hogan na cewa tanadin rigakafin ya saba wa 'yancin ɗan adam na tsarin mulki," [i] dangane da COVID-19, kotuna a duk faɗin ƙasar sun yanke shawarar cewa Jacobson ya tabbatar da cewa babu wani hakki na ƙin allurar." Williams v. Brown, 567 F. Supp. 3d 1213, 1226 (D. Ko. 2021); amma babu wani muhimmin hakki na kin allurar.”).
Jacobson sosai yi ba da izinin wanda ake ƙara a ciki ya ƙi yin allurar rigakafi - ya biya tarar $5 maimakon. Musamman tare da maganin alurar riga kafi wanda ba shi da lafiya ko tasiri, kuma inda aka yi wa yara allurar ba tare da takamaiman bukatun iyaye ba, Hogan Wakilin kotu kwata-kwata ba ingantaccen aikace-aikacen ba ne Jacobson. A kula: waɗannan ba alluran rigakafin da gwamnati ta ba su ba: waɗannan su ne zaɓi ga iyaye, amma wannan zaɓin ya kasance karya. Wannan yana nuna abubuwan da batsa suka yi Hogan kotu ta dauki nauyin cin zarafi Jacobson, Williams, da kuma Norris – wannan ba a umarni amma maganin rigakafi na zaɓi, duk da haka Hogan Kotu ta dauke shi kamar dai tsarin mulki ne saboda gwamnati ce ta ba shi – a lokacin da ta kasance ba. Kuma Mista Jacobson yana da tarar zabin zabi; an hana wadannan iyalai.
Binciken mai tsauri yana buƙatar gwamnati ta nuna cewa dokar jigon “an daidaita shi sosai” don cimma manufarta mai tursasawa, kuma ta yi amfani da “mafi ƙanƙantar hanyoyi” don cimma wannan manufa. The Hogan Kotu ta tsallake wannan bincike, tauye hakkin iyaye da mutuncin jiki, babu ɗayansu da ke cikin haɗari ta hanyar dokar da ke ba da rigakafi ga kamfanonin harhada magunguna don rigakafin, ba jami'ai don raunin da ba a haɗa su da aminci ko inganci ba.
Hogan makale a cikin bambaro don gina tsarin shari'a maras kyau: ƙunƙuntaccen ginin gini ta amfani da mafi ƙarancin hanyoyin da za a iya cimma burin Majalisa na kare masana'antun rigakafin rigakafi. ba zai goge haƙƙin iyaye ko haƙƙin mutuncin jiki ba. Majalisa ba ta keta haƙƙoƙin ba amma ta waɗannan kotuna, ba don hana yaduwar cuta ba amma don hana bin doka ta jami'an da suka yi wa yaro allurar ba daidai ba, suna yin batir. Wannan mummunan gini ne na tsarin shari'a da kuma ƙaƙƙarfan yunƙuri na ƙetare cikakken bincike.
Idan Dokar PREP ta ƙaddamar da ayyukan jihohi irin wannan, to, rigakafin Covid ba tare da izinin iyaye ba. goyon bayan wadannan kotuna ko da gwamnatin tarayya ba ta umarce su ba sai dai idan yaron ya mutu ko ya sami mummunan rauni a jiki. Majalisa ba ta taɓa cewa an yi niyya don kashe haƙƙin iyaye, sanar da haƙurin haƙuri, ko kariyar mutuncin jiki ba. Kotun Maine ta yi watsi da duk wasu 'yanci na asali guda uku da sauri ta hanyar amfani da karkatacciyar dogaro ga Jacobson hukuncin da bai taba gudanar da irin wannan abu ba.
Ana aiwatar da cikakken bincike. Wadannan masu shigar da kara ba su kai karar masana'antun ba saboda raunukan alluran rigakafi amma jami'an gwamnati don keta hakkin amana wajen gudanar da su. Rasha tana ba da babbar kariyar doka ga iyaye da yara fiye da Maine ko Vermont. Duka Politella da kuma Hogan aikace-aikace ne na batsa na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Amurka da na Kotun Koli na Amurka.
-
John Klar lauya ne, manomi, mai fafutukar kare hakkin abinci, kuma marubuci daga Vermont. John marubucin ma'aikaci ne don Labaran Liberty Nation da Door zuwa 'Yanci. Babban jigon sa shine Jamhuriya Small Farm.
Duba dukkan posts
