[ad_1]
During a session of the Supreme Court (Federal Supreme Court), the Attorney General of the Republic, Augusto Aras, stated that compulsory vaccination does not authorize the State to physically force people to take the vaccine.
“Mandatory vaccination does not mean coercive driving and the application of physical force to inoculate the immunizer,” Aras said.
Human dignity, autonomy and self-determination are not compromised by the mandatory vaccination, just as voting is mandatory and voters are therefore not captured so they can go to the polls.
Augusto Aras, Attorney General
For Aras, if the requirement to vaccinate is determined, people who refuse to receive the vaccine may be subject to sanctions, such as the prohibition of exercising certain rights and access to public programs.
The STF began to judge today, in full court, two actions that discuss the mandatory vaccination against covid-19. On the agenda are the actions presented by the PDT and PTB parties that question the provisions of the law approved in February on measures to combat the coronavirus.
The PDT asks the STF to establish the interpretation that states and municipalities can determine the mandatory vaccination against covid. The PTB action advocates that the possibility of compulsory immunization, provided for by law, be declared unconstitutional.
The ministers have not yet started voting in today’s session. The trial is likely not to conclude until tomorrow’s session.
Aras argued in the Supreme Court that state governments can determine mandatory vaccination, if the measure is not adopted by the federal government. The prosecutor argued that the municipalities would not have the same allocation.
President Jair Bolsonaro (without a party) has defended that vaccination should not be mandatory and has already stated that he will not take the vaccine.
None of the vaccines developed against covid-19 have been approved for use in the country.
Despite the statements against mandatory vaccination, it was Bolsonaro himself who sanctioned law 13,979 / 20, which provides for the possibility that public authorities force the population to be vaccinated.
The STF is also judging, in conjunction with the parties’ actions on covid, a process that questions whether parents can stop vaccinating their children based on “philosophical, religious, moral and existential convictions.”
