Candida Summit

Candida Summit

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Patriarchy reaches new high in California

From Gary Kranser...

Before you may act on your determination concerning your child's health, which conflicts with what the state of California feels is right for your child, then you are required to listen to a lecture from someone who the state of California believes holds greater wisdom than you do.

That's the essence of a new law, for which hearings were held yesterday

Perhaps one thing the sponsors of this bill hadn't considered was that a parent just might consult a health practitioner----to obtain "information regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health risks of specified communicable diseases"----who happens to oppose vaccination. Such a clinician would likely suggest more "risks" associated with vaccination than "benefits".
Nevertheless, the bill itself is just another step towards big government control over our lives. The end of Federalism, as today's Supreme Court decision on "Obamacare" exemplifies. We learned today that there is no limiting principle in applications of the Commerce Clause (if government can get away with capriciously and laughingly define it as a tax) according to the majority, and according to some California legislators, there's no limiting principle to supersede freedom of conscience and religion.

Oh sure, you will get your freedom of conscience and religion. But only on the condition that you listen to the government's CORRECT view on the issue.

What if you feel you had already considered all relevant issues on the matter?

Sorry, that's not enough. The government knows best and the government's own view on the matter should prevail upon you, if you are a competent parent. It's the correct view. Why else would government mandate that you listen to it?

If this law is enacted, then the next logical law to enact would be one which penalizes a parent further for not accepting the government's correct view on vaccination.

Perhaps the penalty would be a fine? (Justice Roberts would likely redefine it as a tax, just to make the law appear Constitutional.) Or maybe the penalty would be having to attend parenting classes, as many parents are forced to do when they fail to adhere to the wisdom of Children's Services----such as feeding your kids cow's milk or meat or white bread, etc.?

-----Gary Krasner

Quote from bill support memo:

The bill would require, on and after Jan. 1, 2014 the [exemption request] letter or affidavit to be accompanied by a form prescribed by the State Department of Public Health that includes a signed attestation from a health care practitioner, as defined, that indicates that the health care practitioner provided the parent or guardian of the person, the adult who has assumed responsibility for the care and custody of the person, or the person, if an emancipated minor, who is subject to the immunization requirements with information regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health risks of specified communicable diseases.
The bill would require the form to include a written statement by the parent, guardian, other specified persons, or person, if an emancipated minor, that indicates that he or she received the information from the health care practitioner.



INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Pan
(Principal coauthor: Senator Wolk)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Fuentes)

FEBRUARY 23, 2012

An act to amend Section 120365 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to communicable disease.

Gary Krasner, Director
Coalition For Informed Choice
188-34 87th Drive, Suite 4B
Holliswood, NY 11423
(note: there might be silence after you dial. But remain on the line. I can hear it ringing)

IF your message carries email attachments totalling over 3 MB is size, call me before sending it.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled" . . . Richard P. Feynman


I'm neither a lawyer nor medical physician. It should not be construed from any materials I distribute that I'm dispensing legal or medical advice.

1 comment:

MessiahMews said...

* The Bible teaches that there have been times in history when evil government and government employees have attempted, through force or color of law, to intimidate, harm or destroy the children of God’s people. (Exodus 1 and 2/ Matthew 2). Therefore, if a parent feels that vaccines are not safe, it is their responsibility to defend our children from an individual or government who is attempting to subject our children to those vaccine risks.

· The Bible teaches that the body is “The temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) To inject known neurotoxins into our children, which have known health risks, would be a violation of these biblical teachings.

· The Bible teaches that there are clean and unclean animals and that God’s people are not to put the unclean into their bodies. Many vaccines are made from the blood of diseased animals, decomposed animal parts and are not sterile.

· The Bible teaches that when man’s law contradicts God’s law, His people must obey God over man. (Acts 5:29) Therefore, be it known, should any policy, edict or legislation of man decree our children must be vaccinated, we must obey God rather than man just as Moses’ parents of old, we will do so without fear. (Exodus 2)

· The Bible teaches us that we are not to harm or wrong our neighbor. (Romans 13:10 and James 2:8) Our decisions to decline vaccines do not wrong or threaten our neighbor. If vaccines were truly effective, the neighbor would not be in danger from someone who is not vaccinated.