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.
From CDC Chapter 13 (pg 273)
Vaccination Mandates: The Public Health Imperative and Individual Rights
KEVIN M. MALONE AND ALAN R. HINMAN
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'!.
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 TechnologiesFormer Court Appointed Special Advocate for children
Wife of a retired Family Practitioner
No comments:
Post a Comment