In a recent New York Times op-ed, Saad Omer, an associate professor of global health, epidemiology, and pediatrics at Emory University, suggested several reasonable measures to “nudge” vaccines skeptics into vaccinating their children. “We should borrow a concept from behavioral economics,” he argued, and institute administrative measures that make it more difficult to opt out of vaccination through “personal belief” exemptions:
[States] can require parents to write a letter elaborating on the reason their child should be exempt. They can require that the letter be notarized. They can insist that parents read and sign a form that discusses the risks of nonvaccination. Better yet, they should mandate in-person counseling so that the decision not to vaccinate is truly informed.
These are all good recommendations and I agree with them. They are minimally intrusive on an individual parent’s liberty, and the minimal intrusion is justified by the threat nonvaccination poses to public health.
But there’s an irony here. State officials have been hesitant to limit the liberties of the “anti-vaxxers,” lest they anger certain constituents, but the suggested roadblocks (e.g., letter writing and in-person counseling) are miniscule compared to the obstacles already erected in many states to make it more difficult for women to access abortion. It’s a glaring inconsistency that underscores how intrusive abortion restrictions have become and how little women’s reproductive freedom is valued relative to other liberties. Continue reading