The battle over Covid-19 vaccine mandates is raging in America. In an ironic turn of events, many conservatives who opposed the vaccine and mandates have taken to using the phrase "my body, my choice" in the fight to stay vaccine-free. Vaccinated conservative talk show host, Dan Bongino tells viewers to stop "capitulating to the left" by giving up their rights to make individual medical decisions. He recently said on Fox News: "My body is mine. It was given to me by God. It was not and is not a ward of the state. I will determine what goes in it." Is he right that people should not be subject to vaccine mandates? And what about the use of the phrase "my body, my choice"; is it appropriate here? And how far are we willing to take this? 

Dan Bongino's fight against employer-based Vaccine Mandates

In May, conservative Dan Bongino started a new radio show on the massively-influential Westwood One radio network. A vocal Trump supporter, Bongino had spent the better part of the last 10 years slowly building a profile as on the of the top conservative media personalities, to include a booming website, a highly-rated podcast, a regular Fox News gig, best-selling books, a thriving YouTube channel, and a Facebook page which routinely registers an astonishing slice of the top 10 shared posts. His new radio show, owned by Westwood One owner Cumulus Media, was intended to be a replacement for the Rush Limbaugh Show, following Limbaugh's death in February. Certainly, filling the radio icon's shoes would be a Herculean task for even the most seasoned of radio personalities; for a newcomer to terrestrial broadcast media, it may well have been impossible. Nonetheless, launching with just 115 affiliates (compared to Limbaugh's 600), within 2 months, Bongino had already increased that number to 300. And his audience continues to grow at an impressive rate. 

It appears, however, that the honeymoon is over. Last week, Bongino used his radio show to go on the offensive against show-owner Cumulus Media over their vaccine mandate policy. Bongino said on his show last Monday,

So I partner with Cumulus. You’re probably listening to me on a Cumulus station now. So Cumulus, for some stupid reason, thought it would be a really good idea to do a vaccine mandate... I’m doing it because I want something to change and I’m giving them an opportunity to do it. But if they don’t, this is going to be an entirely untenable situation going forward. You really want me on your airwaves every day talking about this? You have a choice. I work with you. I do not work for you. I never will. 

Cumulus employees had been given until September 27 to be fully vaccinated. In a message to employees, Cumulus CEO Mary Berner wrote, "...we’re requiring that everyone be vaccinated except those legally excepted. It would neither be fair nor do we have the bandwidth to make exceptions based on individual preferences," according to a press release published on InsideRadio. According to media reports, several radio hosts have quit or have been terminated by Cumulus because they chose not to get vaccinated for personal or medical reasons. And this is what has Bongino up in arms and threatening to leave the show. 

It is important to note that while Bongino is leading a fight against those mandates from Cumulus, he isn't fighting against vaccines themselves. As noted in his radio show on last Monday about it he said "I’m pro-vaccine. Let me repeat that because you know how these things get taken out of context — I’m pro-vaccine." He also said that “If you have kids or even work around kids, then absolutely vaccinate your kids." 

Abortion, Vaccines and Drugs. Oh My!

On Fox News Primetime last Wednesday night, Bongino spoke more about vaccines, from whence comes the quote in the opening paragraph. This echoes many conservative protesters' using the phrase while standing up against the vaccine and the mandates. While there are some who at least see the irony, that they "thought the left said it was My Body, My Choice," mandate opponents draw a false equivalency between getting the vaccine and a women's right to choose an abortion and what happens in her own body.

Everything Has to Start Somewhere

So where exactly did the phrase "My Body, My Choice" come from? In 1989, a time when access to safe abortion was being restricted across America, Planned Parenthood released a series of ads featuring women talking about their right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade. One featured a woman holding an empty petri dish, saying, "This is my fetus." That ad ended with these words: "I decide what I do with my body!" Another showed a woman in an exam room lying on an examining table with her feet in stirrups as her doctor asks, "Are you sure you want to do it? ... You're certain now?" She responds, "Yes." Then came what would become one of Planned Parenthood's most iconic phrases: "My body, my choice." To drive home that message even further, that campaign also included a popular bumper sticker that said simply, "MY BODY MY CHOICE."

And with those ads – and specifically that slogan – Planned Parenthood forever changed the debate over who gets to define a woman's rights. By making it about women being able to decide what they do with their own bodies — as opposed to being about women wanting legal access to abortion procedures — Planned Parenthood shifted support from opponents of Roe v. Wade by broadening its appeal beyond just pro-choice individuals, reframing the issue as not just for feminists, but for everyone.

It was a brilliant strategy that echoed feminist slogans like "The personal is political," and ultimately helped turn anti-abortion laws into political suicide for any politician foolish enough to advocate for them. By reminding politicians and voters at every turn what it would mean if anti-abortion laws passed (men could decide if their wives had abortions; employers could decide if their employees got abortions), opponents successfully blunted further related legislative advance during those years.

Today, Pro-Choice activists still use this phrase when fighting for a women's right to access abortion services, but its usage has expanded beyond just that one issue. There are people who have used it in fights over birth control coverage in health care-reform debates; others have used it in fights over requiring pharmacists to fill prescriptions for birth control even if they object on religious grounds; still others have used it in fights over breast cancer screenings; and so on.

Political Appropriation: My Body, My Choice and Vaccines

In a dubious piece of irony, the slogan has been used by the anti-vaccine community. While few on either side are willing to admit it, it seems there should be a tremendous amount of logical overlap between being pro-choice on abortion and being pro-choice (thus, anti-mandate) on vaccination. After all, if you are for "My Body, My Choice" when it comes to abortion, then surely that translates into "your body, your choice" when it comes to vaccines. Right?

The fact of the matter is, however, that while it might make sense at first glance, the use of this phrase by the anti-vaccine community is a mistake. It is a blatant appropriation that doesn't even remotely reflect what "pro-choice" meant at its birth, and it’s disingenuous to employ such words when advocating against vaccines and vaccine mandates. Although no one can or should claim authority over a phrase or slogan, it's important that we understand why there is no comparison between vaccines and abortion – insofar as rights are concerned.

Both abortions and vaccines are scientifically proven to be safe. While vaccine opponents point to safety as a particular concern, and employ “My Body, My Choice” to emphasize say they should not have to put unsafe things in their body if they choose not to, reports of serious side effects are exceedingly rare. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 363 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the U.S. from December 14, 2020, through August 23, 2021. During this time, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received 6,968 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. The FDA requires health care providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. Additionally, serious side effects that could cause a long-term health problem are extremely unlikely following any vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose. For this reason, the FDA required each of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines to be studied for at least two months (eight weeks) after the final dose. Millions of people have received COVID-19 vaccines, and no long-term side effects have been detected.

The impact to others from both an abortion and the Covid Vaccine are significantly different. Specifically, there is scientific evidence that by getting the vaccine you are 6 times less likely to get the virus; by extension, being less likely to get the virus means you are less likely to have the opportunity to pass it on. You are 11 times less likely to go to the hospital; by extension, you are less likely to be carrying a large enough load to be as infectious to others. So basically, getting the vaccine means that you, and everyone you contact, is less likely to get the virus. And that’s why it is being pushed so hard. Eventually, if enough people are vaccinated, then the odds of anyone getting it are lowered. With abortion, there is one person who is directly, personally affected by the choice (the pregnant women), one potential person affected (the embryo), and one person indirectly affected by the choice (the biological father). And so, the idea of "My Body, My Choice" with an abortion has a limited impact other members of society. 

Virus prevention is all about lessening your impact on others. It’s not just about protecting yourself, and so vaccines are not just affecting the body of the person they are injected into, but there is an impact on every person that they come into contact with. An abortion has the direct opposite impact, with at most 3 entities impacted. It is about as personal a choice as can be made, as far as its overall impact. Decisions about "my body", when it comes to vaccines, are about much, much more than just your body.

A Slippery Slope: My Body, My Choice and Illegal Drugs

If the slogan, "My Body, My Choice," is appropriate for the pro-choice side of the abortion debate but isn't appropriate for the anti-vaccine crowd in the Covid vaccine situation, how do we know what would constitute a consistent use? While it may seem intuitive that any time we are talking about our own individual bodies, we should have ultimate authority over what goes in them, good or bad, not everyone seems to agree. A good way to parse between uses is to consider a third use for the slogan: an individual's "right" to use drugs, legal or illegal. 

In theory, applying the phrase "My Body, My Choice" consistently would imply that we should give anyone who wants to use drugs a free pass for their substance abuse and do nothing to prevent them from shooting up. This doesn't sound like an appealing option because we know that substance abuse can be incredibly destructive to one's life and health. Nonetheless, if we were consistent with "My Body, My Choice," would drug use or abuse be acceptable because it is their body? We don't legalize every drug in existence, so there must be some other ethical considerations than just who decides what is put into our bodies. Right? 

When you look at illegal drugs like cocaine or heroin, there is no denying that they are dangerous to society as a whole. Beyond the dangers associated with their Illegal status, means of import, and distribution within the US, the negative consequences of drug abuse affect not only individuals who abuse drugs but also their families and friends, various businesses, and government resources. 

The economic cost of drug abuse in the United States was estimated at $193 billion in 2007, the last available estimate. For context, that is equal to 1% of our 2007 GDP (If that ratio held, in 2020 the cost would have risen to almost $270 billion. No, I have nothing to support that ratio being consistent; this is for context only). This number includes $120 billion in lost productivity due mainly to labor participation costs, participation in drug abuse treatment, incarceration, and premature death. It includes $11 billion in healthcare costs – for drug treatment and drug‐related medical consequences. And it includes $61 billion in criminal justice costs, spent primarily on criminal investigation, prosecution, incarceration, and victim costs.

Life expectancy is another metric that has been impacted by drug abuse. From 2014 - 2017, the life expectancy in the US fell for the first time in 100 years. When we look at the data, and ask ourselves why, we see a concomitant surge in fatal overdoses and suicides, both linked to the use of opioid drugs. Specifically, the death rate from drug overdoses in general has more than tripled between 1999 and 2017 and has increased sixfold among opioid overdoses alone.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but this article is not about drug abuse. Getting back to our initial subject, where does the concept of "My Body, My Choice" fall along the lines of drug abuse? Decisions about "my body", when it comes to drugs, are about much, much more than just your body.

Everyone's a Libertarian Now: Keep those Masks Off My Children!

     It's hard to talk about vaccines in our current climate without also discussing mask usage. As much fervor as there is over people wanting to have more choice in getting the Covid vaccine, they are just as vociferous about mask usage, especially when it comes to their children being forced to wear masks in school.

There are a lot of people who look at data and studies on mask usage and question whether or not there really is any value to children being forced to wear masks in school. However, they are likely reviewing the data incorrectly. Yes, it is true that masking only offers a small amount of protection for the child wearing the mask. However, masks are not intended to protect the wearer. Dr. Mike Smith, a Professor of Pediatrics at Duke University School of Medicine, co-authored the ABC Science Collaborative study published in the journal Pediatrics. His study tracked the effectiveness of mitigation efforts in 100 school districts across North Carolina. From his research, Smith concludes that "masks are really effective because they reduce the likelihood of children with asymptomatic infection spreading disease. COVID is spread via respiratory droplets, which masking contains and keeps from spreading. This is why universal masking is a much more effective strategy and the safest option for the school setting." (EducationWeek)

The thing that most people miss about virus control – whether through mask wearing or vaccines – is that it is less about protecting yourself and more about preventing transmission to others. Anyone who says they are willing to "take the risk" when it comes to Covid-19 or touts statistics that show how it's not a big deal (despite the millions who have died from it), is being disingenuous; they are only thinking of themselves and not thinking about those with whom they may come in contact. Once again, decisions about "my body", when it comes to wearing masks, are about much, much, more than just your body.

Everyone's NOT a Doctor Now: Don't Get Medical Advice from Social Media

Of course, a big part of the problem here is that the use of vaccines and masks has become intensely political in our overly polarized society. And this has been exacerbated by interactions on social media. Social media is great for many things, but you should never ask people to provide – nor should you take on its face – medical advice via social media.

Like any other information shared on social media, there are plenty of people that have no medical training or formal education in the field who are only using such to push their particular belief. There are numerous examples of people using social media as a platform to peddle disinformation without a firm regard for consequences. Be wary of these individuals, be they from either side of the debate; they don't care about your health. They only care about their agenda, which become dangerous when given credence as sound medical counsel. Social media gives people a megaphone to spread something without any regard for consequences, simply because it provides them with attention or furthers their political agenda. It's important to understand why taking medical advice - or spreading medical advice - on social media is a bad idea.

A rallying cry on social media for those against the vaccine or vaccine mandates has been to "do your own research." While in theory, this may sound like practical advice, the reality is that it is entirely misleading. By "do your own research", the idea is to read up on certain medical topics to make your own decision. Bear in mind; this doesn't mean conducting your own research into a topic by completing scientific studies on your own. Rather, it refers to reviewing published material on the topic of choice and hopefully vetting those sources for relevance and accuracy.

As laymen with little experience in medical studies and medical practice, it can be difficult to truly understand the medical information your research uncovers or to understand if the source is reliable. However, many of the articles and studies we come across on social media are shared with us by people we trust. After all, your friends and family are smart, savvy and have your best interests in mind. They’re only going to share information they believe to be true. Still, they might be unintentionally sharing misinformation. Or they may have a cognitive bias. 

Cognitive biases are mental models that your brain creates based upon your own experiences. This enables your brain to make sense of the world and to make quick decisions. You can’t possibly know everything, so you make presumably logical assumptions to fill in your knowledge gaps.

The problem is that cognitive biases are based on anecdotal evidence, so they can lead people to make false assumptions about cause and effect. Anecdotal evidence is particularly dangerous with the Covid vaccines. There have been 414 million doses of vaccines administered in the US alone, and 6.87 billion given worldwide. The total number of adverse effects (that I could find) recorded in the US was under 10,000, or 0.00002415%. However, learning from a trusted acquaintance on social media that that another person suffered an adverse effect from a vaccine can be compelling, often more so than statistics and articles. Anecdotal evidence can feel much more meaningful because it happens so close to home, and often suffers from conformation bias (the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs). No matter how much evidence pointing against the anecdotal there is, it is exceedingly hard to overcome. The truth is that everything has side effects, and decisions and determinations on safety should not be made based on information gleaned from one anecdotal story. 

And the "truth", whatever that may be, is ever evolving when it comes to medicine - especially with -19 and the vaccines that are relatively new and still being studied. Thanks to technological innovations and ongoing research, doctors are continuously learning and changing their recommendations based on new insights. While some might take this as a sign that they still don't know what the "truth" is, the fact is that this is a necessary part of the process. Medical professionals know this; they have access to the latest research and remaining up to date on it is a part of their job. Unlike the layman, they speak the language of medical science and can better understand the research.

As I've said, the discussion around vaccines on social media has been highly politicized. People on social media have no incentive to be open minded about research that contradicts their stated points, or may not bother to stay up to date on the research once they believe it justifies their opinion.

Philosophical and Political Consistency

Regular followers of Twisted Logic know that we are big believers in what we call "philosophical consistency". But what exactly is philosophical consistency? Well, put simply it’s being logically faithful with your core beliefs and philosophy. A set of statements is logically consistent if they can all be true at the same time; a set of statements is logically inconsistent if they cannot all be true at the same time. ... That is, consistency is about understanding the relationships between your beliefs, not proving a belief true. For example, if you believe that killing another person is always wrong, and you also believe that taking a life in self-defense or in times of war is okay, you are being inconsistent. 

Now, with this particular belief, the correction is easy; you can simply change your initial statement to say that you believe that killing another person is almost always wrong, or usually wrong, or some variation. This is an inconsistency that a lot of people fall into; they speak in absolute terms regarding a particular belief, but that absoluteness fails upon scrutiny. One of the ones that I particularly like to call people out on is the idea of free speech. Almost everyone, myself included, has a limit for speech, a point where they feel it is acceptable to limit what someone says. But too many people say they believe in absolute free speech. And, until confronted about the absolute, they suffer from this philosophical inconsistency

How does the idea of philosophical consistency apply to our phrase "My Body, My Choice"? At first glance, it seems easy enough to say that if you accept that "My Body, My Choice" applies in one case – abortion – where it originated, then you must be willing to apply it in all other cases as well. But is it really that simple? As we have seen, when applied to the restriction of abortion, the idea of "My Body, My Choice" limits its impact to the smallest number of participants: the pregnant women, the unborn fetus, and, potentially, the man who contributed to the pregnancy. There are no greater societal implications for one individual's choice to get an abortion.

The same cannot be said to be true when applying the "My Body, My Choice" philosophy to drug use/abuse, mask-wearing, and vaccine mandates. As we have seen, in each of these situations a decision about "My Body, My Choice" has an effect on many more individuals and, arguably, society at large. So, if you are using this phrase in these other applications, then you are not being philosophically consistent because the statement cannot apply consistently across all situations. It really is a phrase best left to the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

Just to be clear on what I am saying here, the idea of philosophical consistency excluding the slogan's usage in other situations does not necessarily mean that it's an invalid phrase, and it does not apply in its original context. You cannot say that, since we determined "My Body, My Choice" did not apply to other these situations, it undermines its meaning for abortion. Rather, when applied to the vaccine mandate debate, it becomes self-invalidating; it only underlines the difference between abortion rights and vaccine mandates.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

The Covid vaccine becoming so political is an unfortunate development. I am uncomfortable with government mandates in general, and medical ones specifically. However, we do have a history of requiring vaccines in the US when necessary. For example, in 1777, George Washington "vaccinated" the revolutionary troops – in many cases, against their will – against smallpox. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that Cambridge, MA could require all adults to be vaccinated against smallpox. Even more recently, US law requires children to receive vaccinations before being admitted into public schools. And if you’re going to college or working as a nanny or daycare worker – or even getting food stamps – you must show proof of your vaccination status. Any veteran of the US military, including my Twisted Logic co-host, Ras Ayer, can tell you the stories of the countless shots received upon enlistment. The reason that these mandates end up being necessary is that too many people refuse the vaccines prior to the mandates.

With regards to the Covid vaccines specifically, there have been many factors that have fueled resistance to the shots, including suspicions about the speed with which they have become available and their possible long-term effects. This has only added to a growing distrust of expertise in general, including medical science, which has also played a role. These reasons have been used in claims that personal freedoms are being restricted, and the rallying cry of "My Body, My Choice" has been misapplied.

And so, unfortunately, government mandates become necessary when people continue to act in ways that put other people at risk. 

Ultimately, this issue needs to find its way out of the political sphere. It needs to find its way off of social media. Every individual should be discussing the vaccine with his or her personal doctor - not their friends; not their family; not political commentators like Dan Bongino or Rachel Maddow; nor politicians like Biden or Trump; not even public health experts like Dr. Fauci. Together, you and your doctor should decide if the vaccine is the right choice for you. And once this decision is made, we shouldn't try to convince others that what we decided in that consultation is the answer for everyone. These are personal medical decisions. Allowing these decisions to remain personal and out of the public discourse, will make it easier for everyone to remain free from political pressure in this decision. And we need to remember our responsibilities go beyond ourselves, so  while my body is mine and I do have a choice – what I decide affects others around me and makes their lives better or worse as well.

For precisely this reason, I do believe that your employer has a right to require you to get vaccinated; they have a responsibility to the entire company, and time lost to sickness is expensive for them. We should remember that this is a business decision for them in most cases, not a political one. Having a company fully vaccinated makes good business sense. Public schools also have the right – truly, the responsibility – to protect all of their students and staff, so vaccinations and mask requirements are acceptable there as well. We have to remember that virus prevention is all about lessening your impact on others. It’s not just about protecting yourself.

Questioning these decisions is OK, but should not be done as a as a personal attack against those making them, or in bad faith assuming that the decision is political or personal. Having a discussion within the company or school district and allowing for a decision to be made for the good of the group should be the practice; but, in so doing, remember that it should be for the safety of the group and not to score political points or to attack your political opponents 

And in the End, The Love We Make Is Equal to the Love We Take

Ultimately, the biggest issue with using the phrase "My Body, My Choice" with regards to the Covid vaccine (and frankly, anything too far removed from its original use in the abortion discussion) is it is a political argument, not a medical or scientific one. It takes a complex issue and tries to boil it down to a simple political point. It's disingenuous at best, intentional obfuscating at worst to use it in any other way. 

Its origin in the abortion discussion was always intended to be a situated political phrase no different in its deployment from "No Taxation Without Representation", "I'm Black and I'm Proud", or "No Justice, No Peace". And it was intentionally making the point that the decision was affecting only a limited group. It was specifically referencing what a women could take out of her body. It was also extremely successful and, and as a tool of many of the same people that support vaccines and vaccine mandates, seems to be a suitable tool for those that oppose such measures.

Under further scrutiny, however, it fails to hold up to the same standard. Where “My Body, My Choice” stands as an independent decision in the abortion debate, it does not in the vaccine and mandate discussion. The consequences from an individual’s decision are too far reaching. It tries to further the concept of “my rights end where someone else’s begin,” but fails because, someone else’s rights start with being protected from getting unnecessarily sick – they start with protection from your decisions.

When we bring drug use and abuse into this discussion, it helps to show the fallacy of the “My Body, My Choice” slogan in other uses. It too falls far short of the standard set by the slogan’s original use. Drug use, and especially abuse, has a dramatic impact on society as a whole. Seeing how the slogan fails only furthers the understanding that it should only be used in its original context.

Taking the “My Body, My Choice” argument into these other realms, and beyond with topics such as mask mandates, only serves to make personal, scientific, and medical decisions political. It’s an attempt to call out the opposition to their political beliefs by using their words against them. It attempts to enforce philosophical consistency on people who are both Pro-Choice and support vaccine mandates. But that attempt seems to misunderstand both the meaning of the slogan and the political consistency it is trying to enforce.

As a country, we need to do a better job of distinguishing between political and non-political issues. When we are as polarized as the US is right now, everything starts to feel political, even when it is not. Misusing the slogan “My Body, My choice,” whether to try and score political points, quiet an argument in favor of vaccine mandates, or to further your own agenda, only adds to the political divide. These are hard, important decisions and discussions. We cannot afford to disparage them by trying to insert a powerful slogan incorrectly into them.