I can’t believe this is happening.

“No person may be discriminated against for refusal to accept an unwanted medical intervention, …” Sounds reasonable. It didn’t pass. But this letter isn’t about HB 1235. This letter is about something that happened recently.

It turns out, South Dakota and the leaders of HB 1235 were ahead of their time. But barely.

On May 6th, 2020, two gentlemen who routinely weigh in on medical ethics and legalities wrote an opinion piece published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) titled “Privileges and Immunity Certification During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” 1 The dialogue inside is shocking.

You may or may not have liked the “immunization” portions of HB 1235. That’s fine. Fundamentally, that bill was about health and freedom. Read the first line of this letter again:

“No person may be discriminated against for refusal to accept an unwanted medical intervention…” Discrimination is exactly what this JAMA article discusses. It discusses what it would look like to require you, South Dakotan, to have an “Immunity Certificate” for work, school, worship, romance, or “any valued human interaction.” Their words. Not mine. This is no longer theory. JAMA is a prestigious medical journal with an impact factor of 51. That’s high. It means their opinion matters in medicine and policy.

Of course they cite current certificate protocols as if they are common and safe, saying they cannot foresee any legal troubles. They fail to mention the $4 billion dollars paid out in damages through the Vaccine Court (yes, it exists - look it up.) Sounds like legal trouble to me.

Regardless of legal issues, I think we need to ask ourselves: are we okay with this? Do you want to present a certificate so you can go to church? What about going back to work or school? What exactly is “any highly valued human interaction?” A kids baseball game? Your grandchild’s birthday party? Maybe it’s a family vacation?

The authors close saying, “A population-wide program of selective advantage based on disease status sounds potentially odious.” They acknowledge the danger and unpleasantness, but they continue, “But it likely is the policy most individuals would choose in a state of genuine uncertainty…. If so, immunity privileges, although selective, could foster broader liberties and economic improvement for all.” Choose this policy of immunity privileges? What does that mean? Choose or will it be forced on us?

It’s being discussed. It’s published. Pay attention. Policies made today affect the lives of millions tomorrow. This isn’t conspiracy; this is a live topic. Thankfully it isn’t policy - it’s only discussion right now. Yet the fact that these discussions are occurring is shocking. I hope we don’t head down this road. You didn’t serve in the war for this America. This isn’t the same freedom your relatives bled for. Died for. An immunity license for a birthday party? Church services checking your papers at the door?

In this election cycle we have an opportunity to put men and women into government who will stand for our freedom and our health, not sacrificing one for another. I can’t vote in your district but I am glad you have a man running who simultaneously values your health and your freedom to go to work, to worship, and to engage in life. I’ve never met Lee Qualm but I’m happy he took a stand with HB 1235 because it was ahead of it’s time on the basis of health discrimination.

It’s here. Not the virus, the insidious threat to our American way of life.

Dr. Seth Severtson - Chiropractor

Mitchell, SD

drsevertson@gmail.com

1) Hall MA, Studdert DM. Privileges and Immunity Certification During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA. Published online May 06, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.7712

Paid for by Lee Qualm for Senate Committee, 27507 John Qualm Road, Platte, SD