True to their colors, the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case challenging New York State's public school vaccination requirement -- all children who attend public school are required to be vaccinated before attending. A lower court ruled the mandatory vaccination policy of the State of New York does not violate the constitutional rights of the children after three sets of parents challenged the policy. On appeal, the court ruled children exempted from vaccinations based on religious beliefs could be barred from attending school in the event of a disease outbreak determined to be vaccine preventable. In other words, the Supreme Court declares the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment worthless.
Infowars reported via the Associated Press:
In the New York case, two students who were not vaccinated on religious grounds were temporarily barred from going to school after a fellow student was diagnosed with chicken pox. The family of a third student challenged the statute after a judge denied her mother's request for a vaccine exemption, finding that the mother's concerns were primarily health related and not religious based.
New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement, "I applaud the Supreme Court for letting stand the Second Circuit's decision recognizing the validity of laws both in New York State and New York City requiring vaccinations for schoolchildren. Protecting children from debilitating communicable diseases should be a top priority."
Let's pause for a moment and look at this scenario. A student, already in school, contracted chicken pox. Because of this, the school temporarily barred two unvaccinated children, because of religious reasons, from attending school. When a third family protested, a judge denied the request because it was not for religious reasons, but based on health concerns.
First question -- if students are required to be vaccinated before attending, why did a student contract chicken pox, as a vaccine for that illness would be required to attend school? More than likely, the student contracted chicken pox outside of the school environment. Next question -- If the affected child received a vaccine for chicken pox, why did the child contract chicken pox?
The "disease" in question is chicken pox, a viral infection one could hardly call a disease. Most individuals over the age of 40 in the US contracted chicken pox as a child suffering intense itching, the outbreak of small red bumps all over the body, a low-grade fever and other flu-like symptoms. The worse that occurred was children missed some school days due to being contagious. "In rare cases, serious bacterial infections involving the skin, lungs, bone, joints and brain can occur." The chicken pox vaccine does not prevent a child from being infected, but supposedly lessens the severity of the infection and assists in faster recovery -- much like the claims of the flu vaccine. Claims are the vaccine is 99% effective.
While loathing to cite the Center for Disease Control after their misinformation campaign with Ebola, the information contained on chicken pox indicates, "Complications from chicken pox can occur, but they are not as common in otherwise healthy people who get the disease." [boldfaced mine.] The CDC refers to a viral infection as a "disease." Those at risk for complications include infants, adolescents, adults, pregnant women, and individuals with weakened immune systems due to illness or medication. Prior to the vaccine, approximately 4 million individuals contracted chicken pox each year. Out of those, 10,600 were hospitalized for complications and 100 to 150 individuals died.
But, is this argument really about "to vaccinate, or not to vaccinate?" No, it isn't; however, that is what many individuals will tout claiming "health reasons" and "public safety." We are talking about a state requirement for mandatory vaccinations. Anytime the word "mandatory" is used, it means no choice for the individual, regardless of age. A freedom of choice or an informed consent or non-consent based on all available information is removed. Simply put, the "States" have mandated away any First and Fourth Amendment recognized guaranteed rights away.
It's follow their rules on vaccinations or your children will be denied entry into public schools paid for by taxpayers as punishment for disobedience.
Many in this country oppose roadside strip searches by police, forced medical procedures, such as colonoscopies, blood draws, etc., via court order based on "suspicions" not probable cause, and forced taking of DNA via cheek swabs at unconstitutional roadside checkpoints. These activities are violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Yet, plenty of conservatives and liberals alike champion mandatory vaccinations. When a state can legislate away, implement regulations or remove the right of individuals to be secure in their persons under threat of retribution, the government has violated the Fourth Amendment. If government denies an individual the right to practice their religious beliefs and exercise religious freedom under threat of punishment, it has violated the First Amendment.
Once government can interject the notion into the people that they are not in control of their own bodies and parents have no authority to prevent violations against their children's bodies, the government can then mandate anything and everything related to your body and your children's bodies away, even the right to life. The government does this by labeling common childhood viral infections and illnesses as "debilitating communicable diseases." It operates on the fear of disability or death in order to "nudge" the public toward compliance. The "nudge" has now become a "shove" regarding vaccinations in some areas.
The same age group of adults today and those older who remember having chicken pox can probably remember having mumps and/or measles (rubeola). Many children considered it a "rite of passage," and so did their parents, to have chicken pox, mumps or the measles. It was not feared or dreaded; it was part of childhood. For once someone has suffered through chicken pox, mumps or measles, the infections cannot be reacquired. In the cases of these childhood illnesses, otherwise healthy individuals suffered no complications and recovered fully. Complications are seen mostly in high-risk individuals.
So, why the government push to "mandate" vaccines? Some will say it's to lower health care costs, prevent loss of productivity in time lost from school and work, and possibly to eradicate the "disease" altogether. However, vaccines are not 100% effective, come with risks similar to the illness/infection itself, and may contain aborted fetus material. A list of common vaccines using aborted fetal cell line material can be found here and here. As an FYI, "the long term risks of injecting infants, children and adults with human protein/DNA have not been studied."
There is a reason vaccines are not 100% effective and it has to do with cost. Here's a hint to the secret: each individual who contracts a virus or infection responds to that illness differently because of their immune system. By contracting the actual virus or infection, the individual develops immunity where certain viruses or infections are concerned. So, how would big pharma go about making a 100% effective vaccine? Think about it.
One reason vaccines are mandated is vaccines are big business in the pharmaceutical industry. Government officials are lobbied by big pharma, contribute to politicians' campaigns and hold government in the palm of their hand. Big pharma works alongside numerous medical organizations to develop "schedules" for vaccines, provides physician offices "free samples" and incentives for using "new" medications, and provides "training" to health care workers on the latest and greatest of medicines and vaccines. The second reason is conditioning the public to relinquish control over their body and their children's bodies. If that doesn't work, mandate away the Fourth Amendment through policy, law, and regulations disguised as "beneficial to health."
Again, the key is removing choice, eradicating rights and freedoms. Both sides of the vaccine issue need to realize this is where the problem arises. What group of people or government have the authority to "force" someone to give up an individual God-given right? Those who are "pro-vax" say their children have the "right" to not be exposed to unvaccinated children who may spread "disease." Yet, vaccinated children can still contract the illness for which they were vaccinated; the counter argument is their vaccinated child would not have contracted the illness if the other child had been vaccinated. Mulberry bush, anyone? Those who are "anti-vax" say their children have the "right" to not be exposed to dangerous chemicals not 100% effective, are derived from immoral means, and/or violate religious beliefs. So, which group's "rights" win?
That's easy. The one the government determines eradicates the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment and freedom of choice. For once the government determines you no longer have control over your own body, including those of your children, and gain widespread support for their agenda through fear of the illness itself or retribution for disobedience, government can "mandate" all sorts of procedures under the guise of being "beneficial to health" despite parental objections and/or an individual's opposition. How does anyone think force sterilizations and euthanasia happened in Nazi Germany?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.