Vaccines Revealed

Sunday, June 12, 2016

[Vaccination-Liberation] Religious Exemptions from vaccination requirements

As knowledgeable 'vaccine-aware' Californians learned last year, the religious exemption is being eliminated. Increasingly we are seeing parents who are protecting their children from toxic vaccines being villainized.
This move is well funded and the groundwork has been put in place to convince legislators that they have the legal authority to eliminate religious exemptions.
Before anyone pursues legal action based on Constitutional rights (or pays any lawyer), please review what the CDC is telling its employees as well as state legislators:

From CDC Chapter 13 (pg 273)
Vaccination Mandates: The Public Health Imperative and Individual Rights
KEVIN M. MALONE AND ALAN R. HINMAN
LEGAL AUTHORITIES—CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF MANDATORY VACCINATION
Parens Patriae
Further authority to compel vaccination of children comes under the doctrine of parens patriae in which the state asserts authority over child welfare. In the 1944 case of Prince v. Massachusetts, which involved child labor under an asserted right of religious freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court summarized the doctrine, noting that:”Neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. Acting to guard the general interest in youth’s well being, the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent’s control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor, and in many other ways. Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child’s course of conduct on religion or conscience.
Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious  grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. (321 U.S. at 166–7, 64 S.Ct. at 442)”

We are going to have to move away from the religious "choice" debate. It is going to become a losing argument - as it has in California. . .
It is hard to understand why there are attorneys who don't acknowledge the Prince vs Massachusetts Supreme Court decision of 1944.
It is hard to understand why there are attorneys who don't acknowledge the fact that the Supreme Court has refused to revisit this issue.

Before signing a contract with a BAR attorney (or giving him or her any money) to "defend your religious or parental rights not to vaccinate", ask him or her how he or she plans to overcome the Supreme Court's position. Unless he or she is willing to give you a money back guarantee, it would be wise to reconsider hiring him or her.
Before our corrupt 'agencies' embark on new policies, they usually lay the groundwork years in advance. In 2009 I discovered when and how they established new 'pandemic' public health policies in Ohio (and other states). As is most often the case, there was a federal grant involved and it all took place without the knowledge or consent of the general public.
During my pandemic research, I also discovered that before instituting new policies - that might be met with resistance - 'agencies' hire attorneys to review and define the "legal authority" needed to implement their programs. See: Limitation of Movement - Legal
Generally speaking by the time new policies are inflicted on us, the groundwork needed to enforce them has been in place for years.Much goes on behind the scenes that the public (including attorneys) are completely unaware of.

If we are to protect our children (and/or ourselves) from the vaccination agenda, we are going to have to look beyond the current constraints of our embedded medical and legal systems and start thinking 'out of the BAR box'!.

Best,

AL Whitney

Retired Registered Respiratory Therapist
Former Court Appointed Special Advocate for children
Wife of a retired Family Practitioner
People for Safe Technologies







No comments: