The Vax-Nazis Target Another State
This Time It's New Jersey Attacking Vaccine Conscientious Objection
An Open Letter to the Legislature of New Jersey
Regarding A3818 / S2173
It is imperative that we raise our voices loudly
enough to change the outcome of this
disaster-in-the-making
Open Letter Sign-Up Below
This Time It's New Jersey Attacking Vaccine Conscientious Objection
An Open Letter to the Legislature of New Jersey
Regarding A3818 / S2173
It is imperative that we raise our voices loudly
enough to change the outcome of this
disaster-in-the-making
Open Letter Sign-Up Below
Here is the situation in a nutshell: Informed Consent is a fundamental human right protected against any diminishment through any denial of philosophical or religious conscientious objections to mandated vaccination. Informed Consent is a separate, specially protected legal concept and right. It is completely separate from statutory exemptions which means that it may not be abolished by ANY legislature. The fact is, however, that the universal right to Informed Consent is utterly meaningless without the right to refuse ANY medical intervention, including vaccination. This right is not only protected under international treaty law, which controls US law, but it is also a First Amendment-protected expressive association right: the right to express “No!” to government-mandated medical intervention.
We are happy to report that New Jersey health freedom advocates have successfully resisted attacks on vaccine freedom of choice nearly annually for over the past decade. Once again, however, the state government is poised to attempt to eliminate religious exemptions in the Garden State. This time the tactic is to amend an already unacceptable pending bill that was supposed to “reform” the traditional religious exemption by making it harder to use a religious exemption. That bill, A3818 (S2173), has been amended to abolish religious conscientious objections and is being rushed through the legislature as you read this. This push against conscientious objection is absolutely contrary to our state’s legal tradition and illegal under both the Constitution of the United States and International Treaty Law.
New Jersey has a long and honorable tradition of protecting religious conscientious objections to forced medical interventions which is completely in keeping with our tradition of religious liberty.
This is consistent with the larger body of American jurisprudence which has honored the right to Informed Consent since at least 1914 when Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo validated the concept of 'voluntary consent' when he noted that every human being has a right to decide what shall be done with his or her body, because medical intervention without Informed Consent is an unlawful trespass: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.” Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
In 2013, the US Supreme Court reiterated this basic legal position in a DUI blood sample case saying that even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)
The right to Informed Consent is universally recognized and is enshrined in international law under the Nuremberg Code. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
Not only that, the United Nations Bioethics Declaration states, “Article 6 – Consent – 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice… Article 28 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity…” http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Yet somehow, the state of New Jersey wants to act as if it is not bound by these laws, treaties and principles: If Bill No. A3818/2173 is passed as currently amended, it is poised to adopt a disastrous law which is clearly “contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity…”.
True, the legislature may have power to repeal an exemption it granted many decades ago, no matter how unwise that repeal may be, but the legislature does not have any lawful authority to repeal the universal right to Informed Consent. Nor does it have authority to condition any other right, such as the right to a free public education, upon the surrendering of the right to Informed Consent. Such a condition is an “unconstitutional condition” which federal courts are empowered to overturn.
The law and doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions” has been well developed since the 1870’s and was summarized by the US Supreme Court in 1972: “…this court has made it clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests – especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to “produce a result which (it) could not command directly.” Perry v Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972)
We are happy to report that New Jersey health freedom advocates have successfully resisted attacks on vaccine freedom of choice nearly annually for over the past decade. Once again, however, the state government is poised to attempt to eliminate religious exemptions in the Garden State. This time the tactic is to amend an already unacceptable pending bill that was supposed to “reform” the traditional religious exemption by making it harder to use a religious exemption. That bill, A3818 (S2173), has been amended to abolish religious conscientious objections and is being rushed through the legislature as you read this. This push against conscientious objection is absolutely contrary to our state’s legal tradition and illegal under both the Constitution of the United States and International Treaty Law.
New Jersey has a long and honorable tradition of protecting religious conscientious objections to forced medical interventions which is completely in keeping with our tradition of religious liberty.
This is consistent with the larger body of American jurisprudence which has honored the right to Informed Consent since at least 1914 when Judge (later Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo validated the concept of 'voluntary consent' when he noted that every human being has a right to decide what shall be done with his or her body, because medical intervention without Informed Consent is an unlawful trespass: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.” Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.,105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
In 2013, the US Supreme Court reiterated this basic legal position in a DUI blood sample case saying that even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)
The right to Informed Consent is universally recognized and is enshrined in international law under the Nuremberg Code. “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
Not only that, the United Nations Bioethics Declaration states, “Article 6 – Consent – 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. 2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice… Article 28 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity…” http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Yet somehow, the state of New Jersey wants to act as if it is not bound by these laws, treaties and principles: If Bill No. A3818/2173 is passed as currently amended, it is poised to adopt a disastrous law which is clearly “contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity…”.
True, the legislature may have power to repeal an exemption it granted many decades ago, no matter how unwise that repeal may be, but the legislature does not have any lawful authority to repeal the universal right to Informed Consent. Nor does it have authority to condition any other right, such as the right to a free public education, upon the surrendering of the right to Informed Consent. Such a condition is an “unconstitutional condition” which federal courts are empowered to overturn.
The law and doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions” has been well developed since the 1870’s and was summarized by the US Supreme Court in 1972: “…this court has made it clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests – especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to “produce a result which (it) could not command directly.” Perry v Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972)
This is extremely serious and goes well beyond vaccination choice.
If we allow the legislature of New Jersey to adopt A3818 it is adopting a law that effectively forbids parents from expressing their conscientious objection to mandated vaccines. This bill is a free speech-gagging bill that violates fundamental First Amendment rights to religious liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of association. It further attacks the universal right of Informed Consent. It places the legislature of New Jersey in (one hopes unintended) league with the Nazi Doctors who were rightly condemned and executed for violating Informed Consent, by the whole world at the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials. Ironically, these Subsequent Nuremberg Trials were conducted by just one ally, The United States because so many in the US were shocked to the core by a system and its medical servants who would, and could, take away the rights of people to exercise control over their own bodies.
We must raise our voices now and remind the legislators of New Jersey that we are still shocked to the core by any such attempt, especially here on US soil.
No person of conscience can remain silent in the face of this brutal attack on one of the deepest foundation stones of the fundamental moral basis of civilization. If we remain silent, and this bill passes, shame on us. Vaccines have been declared by our courts to be “unavoidably unsafe.” [1] Where there is risk there must be Informed Consent. Anything less returns us to the barbarism that was outlawed at Nuremberg.
There are three actions to be taken here. One is personal and two are social.
First, Protect yourself and the ones you love by asserting your right to Informed Consent with the Advance Vaccine Directive card: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard.
Second, click the link below to let your voice resonate in the ears of the New Jersey legislature. Once you fill in the form, I’ll add your name as a signatory to our Open Letter to the NJ legislature. Please add your name whether you live in New Jersey or not. By the way, as our Thank You, you'll receive a subscription with no cost to you to the Health Freedom Newsletter from Dr. Rima (Rima E. Laibow MD).
If we allow the legislature of New Jersey to adopt A3818 it is adopting a law that effectively forbids parents from expressing their conscientious objection to mandated vaccines. This bill is a free speech-gagging bill that violates fundamental First Amendment rights to religious liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of association. It further attacks the universal right of Informed Consent. It places the legislature of New Jersey in (one hopes unintended) league with the Nazi Doctors who were rightly condemned and executed for violating Informed Consent, by the whole world at the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials. Ironically, these Subsequent Nuremberg Trials were conducted by just one ally, The United States because so many in the US were shocked to the core by a system and its medical servants who would, and could, take away the rights of people to exercise control over their own bodies.
We must raise our voices now and remind the legislators of New Jersey that we are still shocked to the core by any such attempt, especially here on US soil.
No person of conscience can remain silent in the face of this brutal attack on one of the deepest foundation stones of the fundamental moral basis of civilization. If we remain silent, and this bill passes, shame on us. Vaccines have been declared by our courts to be “unavoidably unsafe.” [1] Where there is risk there must be Informed Consent. Anything less returns us to the barbarism that was outlawed at Nuremberg.
There are three actions to be taken here. One is personal and two are social.
First, Protect yourself and the ones you love by asserting your right to Informed Consent with the Advance Vaccine Directive card: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard.
Second, click the link below to let your voice resonate in the ears of the New Jersey legislature. Once you fill in the form, I’ll add your name as a signatory to our Open Letter to the NJ legislature. Please add your name whether you live in New Jersey or not. By the way, as our Thank You, you'll receive a subscription with no cost to you to the Health Freedom Newsletter from Dr. Rima (Rima E. Laibow MD).
Third step, and this is very important, is to share this item and this link -- http://drrimatruthreports.com/new-jersey-attacking-vaccine-conscientious-objection/ -- on Social Media of all types. Let your Circle of Influence know that the battle is raging and we need their support. And urge them to share it, too.
Oh, yes, remember to contact your state legislators directly if you live in NJ! Emails and phone calls to the legislators will make a difference, but only if you do it now!
Their contact details are available here: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/SelectRep.asp
Also, a list of Senate health committee members with email addresses is at the bottom of this post.
Their contact details are available here: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/SelectRep.asp
Also, a list of Senate health committee members with email addresses is at the bottom of this post.
Ralph Fucetola JD
Natural Solutions Trustee
Natural Solutions Trustee
Share this message with this link: http://drrimatruthreports.com/new-jersey-attacking-vaccine-conscientious-objection/
[1] See Justice Sotomayor’s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, where she discusses the history of “unavoidably unsafe.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZD.html
------------------------
NJ Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee
Joseph F. Vitale Democratic chair SenVitale@njleg.org
Fred H. Madden Democratic vice-chair SenMadden@njleg.org
Kristin M. Corrado Republican member SenCorrado@njleg.org
Joseph A. Lagana Democratic member SenLagana@njleg.org
Vin Gopal Democratic member SenGopal@njleg.org
James W. Holzapfel Republican member SenHolzapfel@njleg.org
Robert W. Singer Republican member SenSinger@njleg.org
Ronald L. Rice Democratic member SenRice@njleg.org
Richard J. Codey Democratic member SenCodey@njleg.org
No comments:
Post a Comment