The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. – Ninth Amendment, Constitution for the United States of America.

As the Declaration of Independence declares, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  It goes on to declare that governments are instituted by men in order to secure those rights.  When government inhibits, infringes or denies an individual any right given by God, government has usurped its authority and become tyrannical and despotic, deserving to be changed by the people.  

One of those unalienable rights is the right to be the final arbiter of what should or should not be done to our bodies.  It is the reason rapists, murderers and those committing assault are prosecuted.  It is one of the fundamentals behind illegal search and detention of individuals without a warrant as contained in the Fourth Amendment.  However, what about medical treatment?  Should or can the government force individuals into receiving medical treatment against their wishes?  The Constitution does not give government any authority over an individual's body or their healthcare.  But, that may soon change.

According to Breitbart, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) "is on the verge of expanding its power to detain and force medical treatment on anyone" through their new rules, "Control of Communicable Diseases – Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,"  contained in the Federal Register on August 15, 2016.  The convolute proposed rules are long, arduous, and torturous to read.  In simple terms, the CDC rules guarantees that any American can be determined to have a serious communicable disease and subsequently be apprehended (arrested) and forced to have medical treatment.  The rules state the "apprehension period" could be as long as 72  hours – the same number of hours law enforcement can detain an individual before having to levy charges against that individual.

What does the HHS/CDC determine as the definition of "apprehension?"  "Apprehension," according to the proposal, means "the temporary taking into custody of an individual or group for purposes of determining whether quarantine, isolation, or conditional release is warranted."  For all intents and purposes, it is basically an "arrest" without the commission of any crime.

Furthermore, "When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer."  In certain circumstances, "the individual may remain apprehended pending confirmation that he or she is not infected or not reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease."  Under this apprehension, dubbed "agreement," HHS/CDC proposed a definition for "agreement, which refers to an agreement entered into between the CDC and an individual expressing agreement between the parties that the individual will observe public health measures authorized under this part, as the CDC considers reasonably necessary to protect the public’s health, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment."

Jon Rappaport outlined a possible scenario in his Breitbart article.

You live in a polluted city, so you have a low-level cough. On your flight to another state, the cough becomes worse because the air in the plane cabin is foul. Unknown to you, a passenger complains to a flight attendant. The passenger is a typical meddler. When you arrive at your destination, a health-agency employee is waiting at the gate for you. He apprehends you and takes you to a room, to decide whether you have a communicable disease. His first standard question—are you up to date on your vaccinations? And things go downhill from there…

It can get worse: the same story as above, except when the detained passenger is injected with a load of vaccines, he then becomes very ill, or even dies. Using plane passenger lists, health authorities search out and detain everyone who was on the flight, claiming the deceased passenger died as a result of a disease—not the vaccinations—and now all the passengers will be detained and “treated,” because they are “infected.”

Many non-communicable diseases can be mistaken for communicable ones.  A sinus infection, asthma, bronchitis, a cold, and respiratory allergies can have the same symptoms as tuberculosis, MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), influenza, Zika, and a host of others.  Under the above scenario, an individual would be detained/apprehended/arrested by the CDC to determine whether the individual suffers from a "serious" communicable disease – meaning, one would be forced to undergo diagnostic procedures to be "cleared."  It becomes worse when the CDC initiates a conditional release, based on the individual being "monitored," which could entail the use of electronic tracking devices.

In the convoluted government language, HHS/CDC proposes to "redefine the definition of communicable period."  Under the new definition, "communicable period would mean the period during which an infectious agent may be transmitted either directly or indirectly from an infected individual to another individual."  The HHS/CDC has to "reasonably believe" an individual is infected with a communicable disease "in a qualifying stage" in order to authorize quarantine, isolation or conditional release of that individual to engage in interstate travel.

What is meant by "qualifying stage?"  According to the propose rules, "a 'qualifying stage' means that the communicable disease is in 'a precommunicable stage, if the disease would be likely to cause a public health emergency if transmitted to other individuals'' or 'a communicable stage'…it is necessary to define the precommunicable stage of a communicable disease to adequately inform the public of when quarantine, isolation, or conditional release may be authorized. HHS/CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual’s earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent and ending upon the individual entering or reentering the communicable stage of the disease or, if the individual does not enter the communicable stage, the latest date at which the individual could reasonably be expected to have the potential to enter or reenter the communicable stage…”

All of this is very broad, as are most government regulations, where government is the arbiter of what is a "reasonable belief," what is considered a "communicable disease," and what the "precommunicable stage" of a communicable disease is.  

The proposed rules even identify why this is necessary. "It is validated by several recent instances of individuals traveling interstate while symptomatic with MERS, Ebola, Lassa fever, and measles."  It doesn't get any better.  The HHS/CDC proposes an updated definition of "ill person" along with a provision allowing the director of the CDC to modify the symptom definition, as necessary, in response to newly identified communicable diseases.

If you recall the Ebola incident here in the States in 2014, the Obama administration charged six states with the responsibility for "mandatory quarantine" of individuals entering from Ebola-stricken areas.  The administration refused to exercise its authority by banning flights from those areas to enter the republic.  Instead, it charged six states with ports of entry with quarantining individuals, which led to the Kaci Hickox incident.  The complaint from this writer involved healthcare professionals, in particular nurses, refusing to recognize their duty to the public to impose "self-quarantine" as inferred in States' Nurse Practice Acts.  However, none of that would be necessary had the administration performed its duty by restricting entry of flights from affected areas and flights from affected areas connecting in other foreign nations.

Under the Constitution, the federal government has zero authority to interfere in the area of communicable disease.  However, the States do retain the authority to initiate quarantines, etc.  But, no government has the authority to "force" medical treatments upon any individual, communicable disease or not.

Many new and old "communicable diseases" are being seen in this republic because the federal government refuses to enforce immigration and naturalization laws – authority it has under the Constitution.  Instead of clamping down on illegal alien invasion entry, the government answer is to "apprehend" Americans exhibiting symptoms of communicable disease.  Jon Rappaport correctly identified this as the beginning of the "medical police state" as there is no exercise of due process.  An individual's right to move about freely will be eradicated under these rules without being afforded due process if that individual exhibits symptoms of a communicable disease.  With the way government defines any word, one can only guess what their definition of "serious" will be.

While some may be in disbelief, thinking the government would not really implement these measures, take a look at what has happened to religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from illegal search and seizure, the right to privacy, and the right to live one's life from government interference through alphabet agency pseudo-laws known as regulations.  Some may be tempted to jump on the bandwagon in support of this atrocious move to apprehend those exhibiting symptoms of communicable disease.  However, remember that the erosion of freedom and liberty, along with the usurpation of denying individuals their God-given unalienable rights, occurs bit by bit, being almost unnoticeable, until one day, the realization hits that freedom and liberty is no more.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.