Photo by Daniel Schludi on Unsplash The debate regarding the limits of individual liberty and the state’s obligation to promote the common welfare and to protect its citizens is too important to be left to extremists. As more vaccines make their way through Phase III trials[1] and the question of compulsory vaccination presents itself, leaders must address the short- and long-term implications of requiring a specific medical intervention (vaccination) as a condition of community membership[2] versus as a condition of participation in school, work, or other activities. Transparency and openness to compromise are paramount. Broad buy-in on policy which touches such a fundamental human interest, the right of individuals to control their own bodies, is crucial to restore or ensure continued trust in science and American institutions and to prepare the country to combat future problems. This paper argues that universal compulsory vaccination (by state or county) should be implemented only as a policy of last resort. Public health officials must first weigh all reasonable alternatives, including educational initiatives, tax credits (rather than penalties), and variously-formulated requirements for vaccination of subsets of the population as a condition of participation in public activities. HISTORY In 1902, the Board of Health of Cambridge, Massachusetts, using authority delegated to it by the state legislature, required smallpox vaccination or revaccination for all healthy residen

“Vaccine certification” requirements were first introduced in the United States in response to smallpox in the 1800s. Today, physicians routinely provide certification that students have received an array of vaccinations that are required in order to attend school or summer camp, or to participate in sports or other group activities. A similar concept -- recently labeled “Vaccine Passports” (“VPs”) -- has been suggested with respect to COVID-19 vaccination, requiring individuals to provide proof of vaccination in order to engage in certain activities, such as indoor dining or shopping, flying on an airplane, or attending school. However, requiring that Americans prove that they have been vaccinated in order to participate in such activities has generated fierce opposition. The success or failure of these initiatives likely rests on a better understanding of the breadth and depth of this opposition, and its basis. Is it simply that the term “vaccine passport” has been politicized? Or is the underlying concept viewed by Americans as problematic? Or, in the wake of a year of lockdowns and mask mandates, are Americans concerned about yet another government mandate?The purpose of this report is thus to explore two questions. First, is public resistance to vaccine passports mainly due to the politicization of the term itself, or is the public genuinely opposed to any sort of vaccine mandate? Second, do those who oppose vaccine passports object only to the government requiring them,