A federal immunization registry? Count me out.
80 Republicans voted with Democrats to pass H.R.550, titled the “Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2021,” a bill many conservative sources are warning will continue to centralize private health records in the hands of federal bureaucrats, making possible any number of federal intrusions on patient privacy and medical freedom.
What’s the code word in the bill’s name? Answer: Modernization = Nationalization. Government centralization, that is, in the hands of the U.S. federal government, is the corporation with just about the lowest satisfaction rate of any in America. Medical service providers could modernize their electronic databases without Congress or the federal government’s help.
Since 2009, open-source software developers have modernized database architecture with pioneering new advances and techniques. In the space of roughly a decade, we have created a trillion-dollar peer-to-peer finance industry out of those advances.
It isn’t merely about modernizing the record-keeping systems of one of the many industries in America. It’s about the federal government taking control of it as a foothold to continue its headlong advance in the 2020s against patient privacy and individual medical freedom.
There are at least three significant problems with a bill like this:
1. Congress is not constitutionally chartered to keep such a registry. So under the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. constitution, the Immunization Infrastructure Modernization Act is illegal. If he is discharging his duties well, the president should veto such a bill, and should the president fail to do so. A federal court should strike it down when the people or a state bring a challenge. (There are also, most likely, to my thinking, Fourth Amendment issues with this bill.)
2. As every industry grows endlessly more sophisticated and complex, beyond the ability of legislators and regulators to improve from their perch in Washington, it will be practically crucial for Washington D.C. to streamline its operations, rather than continue to ham-handedly elaborate them into corners of industries where they are strangers and do not understand what they’re doing. It cannot reliably predict the downstream consequences of their interventions to practice law responsibly so far away from home.
3. Any help the medical industry gets out of this in the form of the millions of tax dollars it redistributes to this purpose because Congress thinks it’s a good idea, or in the form of technical expertise or whatever the federal government offers, comes with strings attached. Those strings are more requirements for providers of healthcare and medicine to surveil their customers for the federal government, and thereby help in nationally policing the citizenry for compliance with un-American, dictatorial health directives to undergo invasive medical procedures that alter the way someone’s body works. Regardless of the number of steps and intermediaries in this program, it is fundamentally predicated on the notion that the federal government owns citizens and their bodies instead of each citizen individually. How could that notion be justified under any legal theory without subverting a necessary condition of law, that we all bear equality before it?