Jaclyn Peiser reports on what may be a first:
When Rebecca Firlit joined a virtual court hearing with her ex-husband earlier this month, the Chicago mother expected the proceedings to focus on child support.
To her surprise, the judge started by asking her whether she had been vaccinated She replied that she had not been due to past adverse reactions to vaccines and the advice of her doctor. Note that her vaccination status was not even an issue that had been raised to the court by her ex-husband or anyone.
Cook County Judge James Shapiro then made what the parents’ attorneys called an unprecedented decision — he said the mother could not see her 11-year-old son until she got the vaccine.
Read more on MSN.
Firlit is appealing the decision.
Now there may be readers who think “hooray for the judge” for using the power of the court to protect the child’s health. But if you agree that a judge, acting on their own initiative, can order a parent to get vaccinated or else they can’t be with their child, would you be okay with a judge, on their own initiative, deciding that teachers cannot go into the school building unless they have been fully vaccinated? What about a judge, on their own initiative, telling a woman that she must have a hysterectomy because she already has too many children that she cannot care for? Or what if the judge, on their own initiative, tells a man that he had to have a vasectomy because he already has children who he has failed to support?
Yes, we have public health concerns. No doubt about that. But there are also privacy and autonomy issues, so before anyone punches the air in celebration of what this judge did, let’s take a breath and really think this through.
This story has changed. The Judge changed his ruling to allow visitation. Saw a 1pm update at Ars.
She claims to have discussed getting vaccinated with her doctor and due to prior reactions to other vaccines, was advised NOT to get vaccinated.
Some doctors are advising pregnant and women planning to become pregnant in the next year to not get vaccinated as well. My niece is about to give birth in a few weeks. She got vaccinated around 3 months pregnant after talking with a number of doctors, including her own mother. Just trying to show that there are some edge situations were yes/no vaccination is more complex.
Thank you for the update. However, I still have questions as to how/why the judge even raised the question. Was it the case — as the mother subsequently claimed and the father seemed to confirm — that the issue of vaccination wasn’t before the court at all?