Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

Now, without further cordialities, let us begin this debate. Resolution: Public health concerns justify compuslory immunization I will now present unbiased definitions that will better define this debate. Definitions: 1. Public Health (google dictionary)- Public health is "the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals. 2. Concerns (google dictionary) - something that interests you because it is important or affects you 3. Justify (google dictionary)- something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary 4. Compulsory (google dictionary)- required by rule (law). 5. Immunization (again, google dictionary)- the act of making immune. Observations: 1. Public Health Concerns- This is the overall health of the general populace. Since it does not specify a specific region, I will assume this is the global populace. 2. Immunization- This could relate to any illness or disease GROUNDS FOR AFF WIN: If I can prove that just ONE illness justifies (see definition) immunization of a particular disease for the concerns of public safety in ANY place in the world, then I have won this debate. =DEBATE FORUM (Doc.1)= Did you know that millions of people each year die from "easily preventable" diseases? Albiet a small percentage is due to lack of healthcare systems. Even so, this large number can be prevented in almost every case. Also, this site (. http://www.fas.org...) states that the people that the people who die from preventable diseases, outwiegh the deaths caused by all global conflict. In this aspect, many people consider warfare to be the chief concern of health. Indirectly, the consider it personally affecting to their lives (eg. Economy, which affects everything, including healthcare, medical research, etc. ). However, diseases still lie hostile in our domestic territory. Swine Flu (H1N1) is an example of a disease. Now, there a public lawsalready in which certain vaccinations are required (e. g. The ones you must get before starting school). Since my opponent uses the term "justify" and this is not a policy debate, I cannot win alone by providing an example of it's existance. So, even though it's already been done by the USA government, I'll have to prove again that these diseases (which will be the foundations of my debate) justify it to become a legalized law in which potential students require immunizations. (On a side note: I heard that when you make trips to Mexico and America, it is mandatory before you enter the US to get shots) The Supreme Court, which holds legal right as the final law/constitutionality decider, ruled 'Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations. ' I paraphrase there, in case that arouses suspicion of embellishment. The Court observed Constitutional Infringement claims by Jackobson, for he declared it unconstitutional that 'his liberty is invaded when government fines or imprisionment for refusal to submit to vaccination'. So, my opponent CANNOT use the defense that it infringes upon civil liberties/rights (which was quite possible), for I have proven that somewhere in the world that the resolution stands correct, and by technical observation, the arguement and results I have presented affirm the resolution in it's entirety with unequivocal proof.