September 29, 2009: Rally in Albany to Support Healthcare Workers against Mandatory Vaccines

HEALTHCARE WORKERS RALLY FOR NO FORCED VACCINATIONS



New York healthcare workers and health freedom civil rights advocates are planning a rally at the State Capitol in Albany NY on Tuesday, September 29th to protest the new regulations mandating that all healthcare workers with patient contact receive all CDC "recommended" flu vaccines... including the just licensed, un-safety tested "Swine Flu" 2009-H1N1-A.

If you are a New Yorker, please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NY-Vaccine-Strategy-Forum/

Dr. Gary Null and others have a meeting scheduled with the State Department of Health for 10:30 AM that day, so we need mass public support... and the word is that large numbers of healthcare workers and their supporters will be there!

The Department asked us to let them know what we wanted to discuss. This is what I wrote to them:

Gentlepeople,

I understand that the State Department of Health would like to know the concerns of the delegation scheduled to meet the Deputy Secretary of Health next Tuesday.

I've spoken with the healthcare workers and health freedom advocates involved and believe I can provide an initial expression of those concerns. I am writing as a trustee of one of the involved groups, the Natural Solutions Foundation, and exempt non-governmental organization (NGO). The medical adviser and trustee of the Foundation is a New York licensed physician who would be mandated to receive the vaccines if she were to see patients in a New York hospital. Another doctor, who will be at the Tuesday meeting, is a licensed dietitian and nutritionist in New York, subject to the same risks. Our primary concern is that the regulations mandating the flu vaccines do not comport with medical ethics or fundamental principles of law and justice.

The practice in NY has always been that the annual flu vaccine is voluntary. To change a long-standing practice upon which people rely by regulation, rather than direct legislation, is suspect at best. When the change puts people at known risk for serious adverse reactions, the government bears a serious burden that seems to be ignored here. We decry the lack of transparency and public hearings.

We are particularly concerned that the exemption section is insufficient to protect significant civil rights. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees' religious beliefs. The regulations fail to address this and we want the Department of Health to make it clear that the religious exemption is not being abrogated.

By "religious" we mean to include all sincerely held conscientious objections to vaccination that hold in an individual's belief system the same place that specific church teachings may hold in the beliefs of a member of such church. Discriminating against people based on non-church conscientious objections has never been permitted by the courts.

Additionally by providing that the mandate shall apply to all flu vaccines "recommended" by the CDC, the un-safety tested "Swine Flu" vaccines that were licensed by the FDA last week will also be mandatory. This regulatory provision surrenders the state's obligations to a federal agency and is beyond the authority of the Department.

Our message we would like the Deputy Secretary to take to the Governor is that the public outcry against this mandate is such that the Governor needs to rethink his position and needs to meet with and accommodate the sincerely held objections of the healthcare workers.

In 1905 the Supreme Court, prior to the era of Federal preemption of vaccine licensing and recommending, deferred to the states in decisions about vaccine mandates. This was the case of Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

But that court clearly understood that there was a point beyond which no government could go in exercising the police power to mandate vaccinations. It held:

"We are not to be understood as holding that the … judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual … "All laws," this court has said, "should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence. … we are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death."