At the upcoming North Carolina Republican Party Convention, numerous items are up for discussion, including several resolutions.  These resolutions came from county conventions and/or district conventions, made their way through the resolutions committee, and are being presented to be acted upon by delegates. 

One of the major ones – and most controversial – is the resolution on Medical Freedom & Individual Liberty.  This year is the second time this resolution has been forwarded.  At last year’s convention it did not make it to the floor.

Resolutions Give a Sense of the Party

Resolutions  are important because they give a sense of what Republicans are concerned about at all levels of the party.  They allow the GOP to start thinking about platforms for elections and help steer elected officials in the laws that need to be passed.  While they do not in any way become the law of the state, they are powerful indicators of the direction that Republicans want to go.

The Medical Freedom resolution is no exception.  Republicans are angry at the government overreach and tyranny that happened during the pandemic.  They are outraged at the long-term effects that masking has had on children.  They mourn the loss of those who had to die alone because no one was allowed to visit, and they are livid over the very real possibility that a government-mandated vaccine may cause even more health problems.  This resolution is a clear statement: the government went too far, our rights were curtailed, and we do not want to see it happen again.

Reacting to Bad Policy to an Overblown Virus

What proved to be most destructive to our society was the bad government reaction to a virus that should have been easily controlled.  We had universal mask mandates instead of targeted ones.  We were told to be isolated and stand 6ft apart, although no science was behind those numbers.  We saw pastors hauled off to jail who tried to hold church, and even as late as 2023 outdoor gatherings were subject to arrest and charges.

The problem with this entire resolution is that it is reacting to bad policies made because of a virus that ultimately proved itself to be less deadly than we what we were led to believe.  Too many people died.  To this day, though, we still do not know how many died as a direct result of COVID and how many were the result of other factors. 

The question, though, is if this had been a more deadly virus would these same policies of the government have been more tolerable?  Had we been the victims of a weaponized virus, would we be more tolerant of the restrictions that our elected leaders put in place?    The Medical Freedom resolution does not deal with those questions, which makes it  a dangerous policy for the GOP to consider.

A careful consideration of each resolution that is part of this proposal reveals some dangerous flaws in our reaction to COVID-19 protocols.  Thankfully, most are easily fixed.

Sale and Administration of mRNA

After the page  “whereas” statements – which we will not go into – the first actual resolution in this proposal calls upon the North Carolina legislature to:

prohibit the sale and administration of mRNA or other gene-altering injections, designed as immunizing agents against infecting pathogens.

An mRNA vaccine is quite different than the standard vaccines for polio, measles, etc:

An mRNA vaccine is a type of vaccine that uses a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA) to instruct cells in your body to produce a specific protein that is part of a virus or other pathogen. This protein is harmless on its own, but when your immune system detects it, it triggers an immune response, including the production of antibodies. This prepares your immune system to recognize and fight the actual pathogen if you are exposed to it in the future.  (Perpexity)

Figuring out the long-term effects of the virus as a result of Project Warp Speed will take years.  A major part of piecing all that together comes from the fact that those who would be tasked with the inquiry have the most to lose if it turns out the vaccine is worse than the virus itself. 

What makes this part of the resolution problematic is that it is not forward looking.  Yes, we should ban the sale and administration of THIS vaccine.  However, what if mRNA proves to be the answer to child cancer, ebola resistance, ALS – or any other of the hundreds of afflictions whose prevention and cure have so far eluded us?  Do we really want to put a blanket prohibition on a viable science as a result of COVID-19? 

The Answer:  The resolution should be changed to just ban the sale and administration of the COVID-19 vaccine and require all future mRNA vaccines to have legislative approval after extensive study.

Open and Unbiased Research

In a quest for good science, the proposal asks for transparency in process:

comprehensive open and unbiased biomedical research, open and uncensored discussion of preventive and therapeutic medical strategies...

Artists of old would paint their benefactors in the best light possible in order to keep the money flowing to further their art.  Like these artists, modern day scientists know which side their bread is buttered on and skew their data accordingly.  Continued funding comes at the cost of results that favor the donor or organization - all at the cost of objective data.  

We need better science.  Part of good science is restoring it to objective standards and processes that allow for unbiased research.  We need to strengthen the requirement of third-party reviews, and hold accountable scientific review journals. We need blind funding, so those who are doing research do not know the source of the money.  We we do need proper accountability for all procedures, and the ability to ask questions along the way.  Although this lack of objectivity and the politicization of science was in place far before COVID, the constant drumbeat of "trust the scientists, trust the government" reverberated across the country and around the world.

The only problem with this resolution is that it should stand by itself.  Smaller, more targeted resolutions – such as this one – send a more powerful message.

The Answer: This resolution can stand – but should be addressed in future resolutions as its underlying thesis goes far beyond COVID.

Ending the Use of Products Derived from Aborted Children

Another strong resolution, this part of the Medical Freedom proposal seeks to stop completely the use of aborted children in any way:

pass legislation ending the use of aborted children in science and banning abortion developed or derived medical products.

Aborted children and their tissues should not be used a supply for medical research.  The argument of “let something good” come out of ending the life of a baby does not hold any moral water.  Children are not things to be used – whether in life or death.

Two issues with this proposal.  First, it is already addressed in another resolution coming before the body.  Second, it does not really have anything to do with medical freedom.

The Answer:  Although not problematic per se, this resolution would be better folded into and addressed in the pro-life resolution.

Reject Any Restricts on Right to Assemble

Here is where this overall proposal starts going off the rails.  The proposed resolution demands the GOP:

rejects any attempt by state or federal government authority to violate our constitutional right to assemble, including for corporate worship.

A prima facia review of this proposal would lead one to conclude this right to assemble is a basic and important right we need to protect.  As stated earlier, government entities at all levels clearly overreached in their reaction to COVID, including shutting down churches and other worship events.

However, the Executive Branch – be it the President, the Governor, or the mayor of a local township – has the right and responsibility to act quickly and decisively in emergency situations.  This executive power necessarily includes restricting access to private property and not allowing gatherings of worship.  Here in New Hanover County, we are quite aware of the need to evacuate and close parts of the county during hurricane season.  If your church is in the effected area, you are NOT going to be allowed to gather in that place.  During the storms that devastated Western North Carolina, the governor quite rightly declared a state of emergency which suspended some rights to better address the emergency at hand.

A further problem arises from an even more troubling scenario.  What if we are faced with a virus that is more deadly and more communicable than COVID?  What if our enemies weaponize the spread of Ebola, Marburg, or H5N1?  These viruses have upwards of a 90% mortality rate as opposed to COVID’s less than 10%.   The ONLY way to stop the spread of such viruses it to shut down, isolate, and let the virus burn out.   We must acknowledge and affirm the Executive Branch can – and should – suspend the right to gather in that nightmare scenario.

The Answer: Clearly the executive branches of our government overreached in their authority – especially with forced closure that lasted years.  The simple answer is to add “without legislative approval after 30 days” to this proposal.  Currently in North Carolina, the governor only needs the approval of the Council of State to extend emergency decrees.  By requiring legislative approval – be it the state General Assembly, county commission or town council – the executive branch is kept in check by elected officials who are more directly accountable to the electorate.

Unconstitutional Invasions of Privacy

At the heart of this proposal is the rejection that our personal space, movements and interactions can be intruded upon by the government:

a system to force masking, distancing, tracking, tracing, testing, and other invasions, including injections.

Americans do not want to be traced. We do not want to be told to mask up – especially when masks do not work in the uncontrolled venue of day-to-day life.  We do not want to be routinely tested, nor do we want things forcibly injected into our bodies.

One could ask, though, could the outbreak of syphilis in our county in the 1920s be handled in any other way except by blood tests and quarantine?  Polio and small pox were virtually eliminated from our country using mostly mandated vaccines (remember the sugar cube in elementary school).  We must always err on the side of individual libert.  However, does not the higher need of the society as a whole take premise in times of extreme?

The answer:  Like the answer to prohibiting gatherings, this part of the resolution simply needs “without legislative approval” to be added. 

Yeilding Authority

America runs on a system of elected officials overseeing agencies.  This part of the resolution seeks to keep that in check:

rejects yielding any authority to unaccountable and unelected agencies, such as the World Health Organization, as a threat to state and national sovereignty, and to personal liberty.

Our country is in the process of clawing back power from unelected and bloated agencies.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Health (NIH) or any of a hundred other agencies often behave as they are a law unto themselves and pass regulations and restrictions without legislative oversight.  Add to that problem is the World Health Organization (WHO) issuing decrees and statements that were of little value but heeded as law even though they are outside the bounds of our country.  For close to three years, we relinquished our sovereignty to these agencies.

The answer: Really, there is nothing wrong with this part of the resolution.  If anything needs to be addressed, it would do better on its own as part of a general resolution to bring all agencies back under the authority of elected officials.

Unalienable Rights

The last resolution in this general proposal is the most problematic.  It is also the most cumbersome.  It seeks to be a catch all to protect any and all individual rights that may be violated by government. 

In short, it states that no government entity or private entity shall:

ever have any authority to coerce or force upon any human being, born or unborn, any medical procedure or practice including but not limited to masking, testing, vaccination, medical experiments, pharmaceuticals, or any other medical product as a condition of citizenship, patronage, employment, education, worship, assembly, or movement.

The problem?  Instead protecting individual freedom this resolution actually threatens those rights while putting our country at risk.

• Requirements for Citizenship: Immigrants who come to our country need to be tested to make sure they are not carrying anything that will harm our populace. If someone is carrying a deadly disease, how does preventing their entry or denying citizenship impinge on the individual freedoms of Americans?  While MAINTAINING citizenship should NEVER be dependent on medical status, those who wish to become Americans or come into our county to work or study should be held to the highest standards – including health.
• Requirements for Patronage and Employment: The Republican Party is the party of small business. We are outraged when business owners are told to do something that goes against their personal beliefs.  We fight against unions that want to take over businesses to artificially increase wages.  We seek to reduce the number of regulations that get in the way of success.  This proposal, though, treads heavily on the rights of businesses.  If a local small business wants a patron to be masked and wrapped in bubble wrap before he enters the property, that is the right of the business owner.  If that same owner wants proof of vaccination as a condition of employment, what right do we have to say who that owner can and cannot hire?  The free market should determine the success of business owners based on their policies – not the government.
• Requirements of Education, Worship and Assembly: Private education facilities – as do private businesses – have every right to require students and employees meet certain health standards and practices. Same with churches and other religious organizations.  If a church demands masks to attend, who is the government to demand otherwise?  If a private organization wants to hold a private event and wants proof of vaccination, they should be allowed to do so.  To do otherwise impinges on their freedom of religious expression just as much as preventing the gathering of these organizations in the first place.
• Travel: Although it seems like this would be the exception, this restriction is also problematic. Most travel is done by private entities – our own cars, bus lines, air lines, etc. If an airline company requires its passengers to mask up – despite the fact that cabin air is cleaner than the outside – it is their right and their business to do so.

None of these examples impinge on personal liberty.  Immigrants – while having the God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – do not have the inherent right to be granted access to our country.  If a customer does like the policies of company A, she can always go to company B – no one is forcing her to shop at the first place of business.  If employees do not want to live up to the medical standards of their employers, they can find employment elsewhere.   

Where this section does have some merit is when GOVERNMENT entities put these requirements in place without legislative oversight.    In the private sector, customers have a wide range of choices who provide basically the same service.  Government, on the other hand, has a monopoly on the services they provide.  Restricting access to these services or restricting free movement or assembly must be done carefully and with a great deal of deliberation.

The Answer: Although a huge resolution, it can be saved.  A better version would read:

Resolved, that the North Carolina Republican Party recognizes that all North Carolinians are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights which are affirmed by our founding documents, and mean that no government entity shall ever have any authority to coerce or force upon any human being, born or unborn, any medical procedure or practice including but not limited to masking, testing, vaccination, medical experiments, pharmaceuticals, or any other medical product without legislative approval and periodic review.

Good Intentions, Not Good Policy

In reality, this resolution is less about medical freedom and more about the proper role of government in times of emergency.  COVID-19 forced us to realize that we have not properly addressed this question.  In many ways, we got off lightly.  A more deadly and virulent pandemic would have caused even more devastation because we were completely unprepared in our response.  That must change.

The various government entities in North Carolina overreacted and overreached in their response to COVID-19.  We need to send a clear message as to how wrong they were.  However, we cannot let bad policies brought about by a relatively weak virus tie our hands to respond to other more deadly threats that are coming our way. 

We need to do better.