State Bills with Official Speech Requirements Violate the First Amendment
New Vax Religious Exemption Attacks in Several States
This is of enormous concern to us all, whether we have children or not.
If parents do not have the right to make health decisions for their minor children, how long will it be before you no longer have the right to make these same decisions for yourself?
We all know there are serious risks from vaccination. That is why it is an uninsurable risk, imposed on people by law. A certain percent of children who are vaccinated will be harmed, even killed.
As such, questions of privacy, personal liberty, and religious belief are deeply involved.
Right now, in several States of these United States, very similar bills are being introduced by the vaccine drug pushers and their political friends. These bills are like the bill just passed in California, but not yet signed by Gov. Brown, who is hearing from many opposed parents.These new laws impose Official State-Sponsored Speech, the very anathema of the First Amendment with its absolute injunction, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...".
How they do that is described later in this article. The battle being waged on the bodies of little children is an essential health freedom battle. We simply cannot afford to lose the right of each individual to assert religious or philosophical exception to vaccination. To many people the administration of these toxins violates their fundamental religious beliefs in the sanctity of the body. Concerned parents and all who value liberty must call for an end to all mandated vaccination and the propaganda of vaccination benefit lies, as well as all other forms of forced medical treatment. The unnecessary scourge of autism spectrum disorders will not cease until the evil of vaccination is ended. This must happen now! In particular, with reference to the State of California, we note with alarm the introduction in the State Legislature during February 2012 of AB 2109, "An act to amend Section 120365 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to communicable disease." WHICH HAS NOW PASSED THE LEGISLATURE! THAT BILL IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL BY GOV. BROWN!
The bill interferes with religious liberty and philosophical opposition to mandated vaccines by requiring parents to obtain a propaganda letter from licensed physicians or registered nurses as agents of state-mandated medicine that they had been told of the alleged “benefits” of vaccination and the alleged “risks” of not being vaccinated (but the law does not mention the foreseeable harms which we know will be caused by uninsurable vaccination). We call for an end to all such schemes aimed at perpetuating the official lies denying the evident risks of vaccination. We demand that the uninsurable vaccine industry, legislatively exempted from tort responsibility for the foreseeable harms vaccines inevitably cause, be finally held fully accountable. It is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights (speech, redress and association) of the parents and the licensees.
Mandated vaccines are now coupled with mandated speech to create official science which is the antithesis of real science.
Like the horror stories that came from state-sponsored "medicine" and "psychiatry" in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the lies of official vaccines "science" condemn, if not millions, certainly at least thousands, to untimely maiming and even death. Expert Vaccination Exemption Attorney Alan J. Philips JD explains why California AB 2109 is unconstitutional here: http://www.vaccinerights.com/pdf/3-10-12_CA_AB_2109_Memorandum.pdf -
"California’s statutory construction rules applied to § 120365 make clear that § 120365 encompasses personal religious beliefs as a basis for the exercise of the exemption. Federal courts have held that First Amendment protection for religious objections to immunizations requires only that the applicant hold a sincere belief that is religious in nature. Thus, AB 2109’s additional requirements involving healthcare providers, as they pertain to those persons exercising the exemption due to personal religious beliefs opposed to immunizations, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
Yours in health and freedom,
Counsel Ralph
Ralph Fucetola JD
Natural Solutions Foundation
PS -- Vaccine Truth Crusader, Gary Krasner has this to say about these bills:
> One thing the activists in CA complained about was that failure of a physician to make himself available and willing to write a statement for a parent would be an undue hardship. > >A court might find flaws in the law persuasive. So try exposing the flaw in the reasoning behind subsection 2. > > The proponents probably cited as their rationale (more like "pretext") that their concern was that parents inclined to forgo vaccination are not receiving "competent" background information on vaccination, and that they should, before making this "drastic" decision. > > FLAW 1: > > What is competent information? Proponents would reply, anything citied by an MD. But there is no uniform consensus among MDs. Most support vaccination. A small number do not. Many limit the amount of doses in their own children, from concern about toxic load. > > If there is no uniform consensus, then there's no ONE competent view on the matter. If proponents claim there is ONE competent view, then the statute as written would have some parents receiving incompetent or less than competent information. > > FLAW 2: > > If the DoH decides to draft the language for standard vaccine info that physicians should furnish parents, then physicians are placed in a conflict of interest by Subsection 2. > > The amendment wants them to dispense standardized information issued by public health agencies. But that information is broadly determined for the population as a whole. The mandate of the DoH is also to maximize vaccine compliance rates. So their "standard" information may also be biased, to boot. > > But pediatricians and all clinicians defined in sub 2 have a professional oath to serve the best interests of their patients. Their clinical judgment for particular patients might require that they depart from the standard vaccination information issued by DoH.
