Court Opinion

ID: 9722192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:19:54.057443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:31.718469
License: Public Domain

Yetka, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. To me it is essential to bear in mind that, unlike the vaccination cases, we are not asked to decide the constitutionality of a law which directly imposes fluoridation on an unwilling individual. Rather, Minn. St. 144.145 does so only indirectly by requiring municipalities to fluoridate their water supplies for the purpose of making available publicly-funded fluoride treatment. Presumably those opposed to fluoridation are free to obtain non-fluoridated water from other sources, however impractical and unlikely that may be. Moreover, the law, by its terms falls short of reaching a large number of our population who draw their water from private wells. Undoubtedly were the law otherwise, e. g., compulsory periodic dental application of fluoride for all children, the decision reached by the majority would have been arrived at with greater difficulty.
Equally important, in my judgment, is the distinction between the chlorination of a public water supply and fluoridation. The purpose of the former is to ensure the safety of a water supply for public consumption; the purpose of the latter is to treat individual dental health problems.
*42The majority concedes that a substantial constitutional right is involved, but that the state’s intrusion or infringement upon that right is justified when its interest is balanced against that of the individual. It was my understanding in Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250, 239 N. W. 2d 905 (1976), cited, in the majority opinion, that even if the state’s intrusion is justified, it is not unlimited. In addition “[i]t must appear that the means utilized to serve the state’s interest are necessary and reasonable, or in other words, in light of alternative means, the least intrusive.” 307 Minn. 257, 239 N. W. 2d 910. I assume this is also what the majority has in mind in assessing the reasonableness of the means chosen by the legislature in enacting Minn. St. 144.145.
Contrary to the conclusion of the majority, it seems to me that in the city of Brainerd, where an overwhelming majority of those participating in a voter referendum indicated their opposition to fluoridation, less intrusive means could and should have been utilized. In fact, the infringement of the rights of the majority could have been avoided altogether. The state’s purpose was to make available publicly-funded fluoride treatment, not to impose it directly on individuals. It chose what it obviously considered to be the most efficient means. But it could have achieved that same purpose by compelling the city to furnish fluorine tablets or dental application to those who wished it, without infringing on the rights of the majority. Moreover, it is my understanding from the record that Brainerd is willing to provide fluoride in such an alternative fashion to those who wish it.
Moreover, it must be remembered that while fluoridating a water supply may be an efficient means of achieving the state’s purpose, it is apparently not the most economical method in Brainerd. Carl Zapffe, Ph. D., a scientist specializing in chemistry, physics and metallurgical engineering, averred in an affidavit that there was a “strong likelihood” that the “complicated and delicate chemical balance” in the Brainerd water filtration system “due to the excessive presence of manganese and iron *43oxides dissolved in the natural water” could be destroyed by the addition of fluoride in the amounts proposed by the state.
There has also been some evidence presented in the case that fluorine might be a carcinogen. I must say that the evidence presented was very weak and could have been more decisive in this case, but this court ought to take judicial notice of the fact that scientists are finding every day that additives, chemical and otherwise, of all sorts are seriously suspect in the rising rate of cancer in the United States. When there is not a showing of a great overriding state interest and fluorine is readily available for those who want it by other means, why shouldn’t the wishes and the rights of the local citizens, whether individually or as a group, be respected and be paramount?
There must be a point at which state action must yield to the asserted rights of the individual. I believe that this point has clearly been reached in this case. Central to our notion of democracy is the .respect for the rights and wishes of the majority. Here the infringement of the majority’s rights can be avoided without defeating the legislative purpose of the Minnesota Fluoridation Law.
For these reasons I must respectfully dissent.
Me. Justice Otis took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.