Vox's forced child vaccination flip: the unacknowledged U-turn

Vox demanded by law that children be vaccinated, but now claims the opposite

Does Vox still support mandatory child vaccination, which it once demanded? The blunt question addresses an issue many of the party's voters prefer not to recall: during the pandemic, Santiago Abascal's party supported making immunization for minors legally required. Today, as public attention has shifted to cobi19 vaccines and their management, that support has faded from the official narrative. Available data point to a change of position that no one publicly claims.

What Vox specifically demanded regarding child vaccination

The starting point is a requirement registered in the electoral program and in statements by its leaders: mandatory vaccination of children. This was not a health recommendation or advice to families. It was a legal mandate. The party defended it with the same energy it later used to criticize lockdowns and ELbichito certificates. This double standard fuels the controversy.

Some argue that this support was circumstantial, driven by media pressure in 2021, and that the party never truly intended to legislate on this. However, a difficult-to-avoid argument remains: mandatory vaccination appeared in the program, and a program is not a casual opinion. It is a commitment signed before voters.

The controversy intensifies when comparing how Vox treated the child vaccine versus the adult ELbichito vaccine. In the first case, mandatory vaccination was accepted without fuss. In the second, it became a banner for individual freedom. Coherence in politics is scarce; here, it is entirely absent.

The role of officials who are no longer present

Much of the support for mandatory vaccination is attributed to officials who have left the party. This includes former spokespersons or prominent figures from that period who defended the measure against criticism from more libertarian grassroots members. This profile, now outside the party, allows current leadership to distance itself without accepting the cost of a formal reversal.

The maneuver has a name: selective forgetting. The previous position is neither denied nor explained; it is simply ignored. And it works, because the average voter does not keep a file of electoral programs on their nightstand. Political memory is fragile, and parties know this.

Why Vox voters prefer not to discuss this

The discomfort is evident. A segment of Vox's electorate identifies with the discourse on individual freedom, opposition to lockdowns, and distrust of pharmaceutical companies. Remembering that their party demanded mandatory child vaccines places them in an uncomfortable position: either accept the contradiction or disown their own vote.

The most common response is the "you too" argument. They retort that the PSOE did the same, that the PP also supported child vaccination. This is true. But it does not resolve the underlying issue: if all parties supported the same thing, where does the supposed alternative Vox represents stand?

The most optimistic scenario for the party assumes the issue has diluted over time and that no one associates it with their program anymore. The pessimistic scenario starts from a different reality: every time the topic is revived, fruta damage is renewed. And some ensure it is periodically revived.

Mandatory vaccination still in the program

The key question is not whether Vox changed its mind, but whether this change has translated into a normative or programmatic shift. Available data suggest that mandatory vaccination remains in the program, or at least there is no public rectification. That is: what is criticized is not a past position, but a position that may still be active.

This turns the controversy into more than a historical score-settling. It is a warning about what the party might do if it came to govern with legislative power. Mandatory child vaccination is not a trivial measure: it affects family freedom, conscientious objection, and the State's role in minors' health.

Those defending the measure argue that collective immunization protects the most vulnerable and that mandatory vaccination is the only way to guarantee high coverage rates. Those criticizing it maintain that individual freedom is non-negotiable, and that a party claiming to be liberal cannot impose treatments on minors. The tension is set.

The political cost of selective amnesia

Selective amnesia has a cost. Not immediate, not measurable in weekly polls, but cumulative. Every time a voter discovers that their party defended the opposite of what it claims to defend, trust is slightly shaken. And in politics, trust is the only asset that cannot be bought with marketing.

The problem for Vox is not having supported mandatory vaccination. The problem is never explaining why it changed its position. To rectify is wise, the saying goes. But to rectify in silence, without accepting the cost, is something else. It is what some call a weather vane, and others, simply, politics.

With these elements, the initial question remains without a clear answer. Does Vox still support mandatory child vaccination? Officially, no one clarifies. Unofficially, silence is the answer. And silence, in politics, is rarely innocent.