New York State's School Bureaucracy is going after vaccine resister parents with a vengeance.
We previously reported on the NY school district that sent letters to vaccine conscientious objector families threatening to "turn them over" to the State's "Child Protective [sic] Service" (CPS) -- an agency widely believed to be a recruiting grounds for pedophilia. See: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/ny-school-district-to-parents-vaxx-or-we-call-child-protective-services/
Since the New York State legislature repealed long-standing religious conscientious objection exemptions to vaccine mandates (in one day, without public hearings) earlier this year, the State's various agencies have felt empowered to punish parents who seek to preserve their conscientious objections to forced vaccination. While the State's highest courts and the federal courts have not ruled on the legality of this legislative repeal, the agencies are frightening parents by threatening them with dire consequences. In addition to the CPS threat, and the targeting of the Orthodox Jewish Community in New York [see: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/the-persecution-of-vaccine-conscientious-objectors/ ] we now have at least one case where the school nurse has taken the position that even the universal right to Informed Consent no longer applies in New York. Although some may argue that the New York legislature had legal authority to abolish an exemption it had granted decades ago, this is the first time we have seen any member of the medical community assert that the State can authorize school authorities to ignore Informed Consent.
It is particularly distressing that the school officials who take this position possibly do not know that they stand "in the Docket" at Nuremberg with the Nazi doctors who were convicted after World War II of ignoring Informed Consent. The Nuremberg Code, binding on the United States and every State in the Union, is quite clear:
“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..." http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.htmlNonetheless, the school nurse told one conscientious objector in writing: "Our OCFS licensor came in this morning so I was able to talk directly to her. She said that the advanced directive that you have would not be valid related to the fact that it is not signed by a doctor..." Of course, the whole point of an advanced medical directive is to tell the doctors and other health care providers about what a person is giving Informed Consent.
To require a doctor to sign the advanced directive completely negates its purpose. It is not about permission from a doctor or State agent; it is about each person's universal right to grant or refuse Informed Consent, for any reason, or no reason at all. Period. End of issue. Here is what Wikipedia says about the status of such a directive: it "is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health... In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_healthcare_directive
Since we know from current Supreme Court cases that one must assert the right of Informed Consent or it will be deemed waived, we know that allowing State education officials to ignore an expression of Informed Consent (or, more specifically, an expression of refusal to grant Informed Consent) is a clear violation of the First Amendment. In one recent case the Court opined, Missouri v McNeely (2013):
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…” (page 15; emphasis added).Unless you assert your right to Informed Consent, it will be ignored. Learn more here: https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard
