Source: https://community.healthimpactnews.com/topic/2466/could-proposed-mandatory-vaccine-laws-survive-legal-challenges
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:53:07+00:00

Document:
There is a national push to remove vaccine exemptions for school-aged children, and new laws and regulations are being proposed all across the U.S. for mandatory vaccinations. What are the legal challenges to now legislating mandatory vaccinations to a population that no longer has the right to legal redress against the manufacturer of potentially faulty vaccines that are known to maim and kill people? Is it Constitutional to remove the right to informed consent, and the right to refuse such a product if it is administered by force? Mary Holland, a research scholar and professor at NYU School of Law, addresses that question.
Here in Australia, as of 1 Jan 2016, our philosophical opposition to vaccines will no longer be consider a legitimate reason not to vaccinate our children. The government has also abolished religious exemptions. They have given us a medical exemption but the exemption goes something like this... If you child has had an adverse reaction to a vaccine, then the govt may consider an exemption. It's not enough that a sibling has, the actual child in question must have prior history of an adverse reaction. So first they jab then they see. Additionally here they have no compensation fund set up. This is also a country where Lymes disease doesn't exist (even though pathology would demonstrate otherwise) and also the country that did atomic testing on it's citizens, fluoridates it's water and regularly exceeds the recommended safe rate by x1000 fold. In addition, they have removed any tax breaks if you don't vaccinate your kids - $7500 for each child. We have three. Will I vaccinate them ? No friggin way. I have IBD. If their is 0.001 % chance they could get that from an MMRV vaccine, the risk is too high.
That said Ralph, what about the Supreme Court granting immunity to drug companies for the greater good no matter who is harmed in the process, no matter whose child goes lost in their own mind to protect the herd, please. Consider the mothers who loose a child and their life to 24 7 care for a child who can not care when lost in their own mind. Any mother of an autistic child could consider adding organic sulfur to the diet of your child and yours and watch there eye contact return, then their language, not words thought hidden away in their right brain. If we wait for the courts we could all die, while we spend the money and all of the advertised drugs of pHarma have been replaced with organic sulfur twice a day. Bankruptcy and saying no to vaccines will solve the problem economically. Lawyers and lone Sharks are selling our future, Joni Mitchell.
"We note in passing that the clause in Sec. 2164(9) requiring that parents who seek an exemption be "bona fide members of a recognized religious organization" has been held unconstitutional, see Scherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, 672 F.Supp. 81 (E.D.N.Y.1987), and that the state has determined it will not appeal. Brief for Commissioner Ambach at 8 n. 4. As a result, pursuant to New York's separability statute, N.Y.Pub. Health Law Sec. 5000 (McKinney 1985), the "recognized religious organization" clause is automatically excised from subsection 9, leaving a general exemption for any person whose opposition to immunization stems from a sincere religious belief. Scherr, 672 F.Supp. at 92." "There does not appear to be any rational basis or legitimate purpose in requiring a person to be a registered member of an organized church as opposed to one who can prove that he genuinely practices and lives his religious tenets in order to qualify for this religious exemption. ( Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 626.) In fact, the latter could be more sincerely *245245 a proponent of a religious faith than the former. Mere church membership or attendance does not guarantee the everyday practice of such religious beliefs. Thus, if the Legislature desires to exempt for religious grounds a certain class of persons, it must do so on a logical and nondiscriminatory basis. ( Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333; United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163; United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605.)" "In Matter of Community Synagogue v. Bates (1 N.Y.2d 445,458), CONWAY, Ch. J., writing for the court, stated "that a court may not permit a municipal ordinance to be so construed that it would appear in any manner to interfere with the `free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship'." (NY Const., art. I, § 3.)" "There is no right in a state or an instrumentality thereof to determine that a cause is not a religious one. Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of *244244 the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940)." ( Kolbeck v. Kramer, 84 N.J. Super. 569, 574, supra.)" "In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 32 L.ED.2d 15 (1972), the Court dealt with a mandatory school attendance requirement under a Wisconsin statute. Members of the Amish faith refused to comply and were convicted. When the case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court the convictions were reversed. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court the action of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was affirmed on the ground that the state's interest in compulsory education was not so compelling that the tenets of the Amish faith should be required to give way. The Court said that in order to uphold a statute under such circumstances (where religious beliefs and public or state interests conflict) "it must appear either that the State does not deny the free exercise of religious belief by its requirement, or that there is a state interest of sufficient magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise Clause." (406 U.S. at 214, 32 L. Ed. 2d at 24)." "The New York Court in Maier v. Besser,73 Misc. 2d 241,341 N.Y.S. 2d 411 (1972), which involved a suit of a parent on behalf of his children who had been required to leave school because they did not have a certificate of immunization in compliance with the New York Public Health Law,§ 2164 of which provided: This section shall not apply to children whose parent, parents, or guardians are bonafide members of a recognized religious organization whose teachings are contrary to the practices herein required, and no certificate shall be required as a prerequisite to such children being admitted or received into school or attending school. In Maier, a case decided by the Supreme Court of Onondaga County, and which does not appear to have reached the Court of Appeals of New York, the court of last resort of that state, the parent asserted that because of religious beliefs entertained by himself and his children which were "basically similar to those held by Christian Scientists," his children had not been immunized although it was admitted that they were not members of the Christian Scientist Church. The New York Court (Onondaga County) held that there was no rational basis or legitimate public interest requiring that a person be a member of an organized religious body as distinguished from one whose genuine beliefs qualify him for a religious exemption." http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Reader/docs/Brown.pdf "Granting religious exemptions only to members of a recognized religious organization, or to those who demonstrate a sincere and genuine religious aversion to vaccination, fails the second two prongs of the Supreme Court’s famous Lemon test and thus offends the First Amendment (see Novak, The Religious, at 1110-1115). Both of these exemption requirements advance one religion at the disadvantage of another, thus violating strict neutrality, while at the same time demanding a high level of government intrusion and investigation into the beliefs of the faithful, thus creating an unconstitutional entanglement of government and religion." http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/vaccination-religious-exemptions "A state’s right to require vaccination was first established in the 1905 Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that era, smallpox infection rates were staggering, and the danger the disease posed to the public health was clear and impossible to ignore. Recognizing the severity of the danger, the Court found that a state had the right, under its police power, to require vaccination against smallpox. Many pro-exemption advocates find it problematic that those opposed to religious exemptions rely on a precedent established 100 years ago, and point to the fact that there does not exist today a disease prevented by vaccination that poses a threat to the public health that is comparable to that posed by smallpox." 360 medical research articles from the US National Library of Medicine regarding vaccine dangers: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/health-guide-vaccine-research "A parent's religious "beliefs" are sufficient to qualify for the religious exemption. The "belief" is defined as a faith that occupies a place in their lives parallel to that held by the orthodox belief in God or any sincere religious beliefs which are based upon a power or being to which all else is subordinate and on which all else is ultimately dependent. They qualify if they believe that not giving the vaccines is what they must do to follow God's will for them in fulfilling their role as responsible parents. Their child's immune system is a creation of God and that God has given their child and that to vaccinate would violate their faith in what God created. The parents do NOT have to be part of a recognized religious organization. You don't have to join any church, you can be any religion at all. But if they are a part of an established religion (Catholic, Protestant, Islam, etc.) they can still have their own perceptions of what it means to follow God's will which may be counter to what that organization states. The case is established with legal precedent at the US Supreme Court level. (United States Supreme Court in Sharon Levy vs. Northcourt cases) The important rule here is that if a school district denies religious exemption they are violating your federally protected civil rights under the first amendment by what is called state action and under federal law you are entitle to money damages." https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/12/joseph-mercola/vaccine-exemptions-under-attack-in-all-50-states/ (See Page 4.) United States Supreme Court in Sharon Levy vs. Northcourt https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/28472 "For me this is not a debate about the merits of vaccines, the harm vaccines may cause in a subset of vulnerable children, or whether or not the current CDC schedule is really in the best interests of our children’s health. It is a debate about freedom and parental choice." "Studies have shown that breastfeeding—more than access to clean water and vaccines—helps children survive and thrive. Not breastfeeding is a public health emergency. So given the overwhelming evidence of the positive benefits of breastfeeding and the unequivocal benefit to a child’s immune system, should we legislate that American women breastfeed their babies? And exclude any children from public school if they have not been breastfed? " There is no place for forced vaccination in a free society.
True enough. I am 65, and I hear you loud and clear. I have been damaged by vaccines and if any doctor or nurse would try to force a vaccine on me, I would look upon it as a potential lethal injection and i would use lethal force on the perpetrator.
I've written about Jacobson v Mass. here: http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2015/02/an-open-letter-to-judge.html Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). This case is often erroneously cited as authority for mandatory vaccinations. The case is rather more nuanced and announces compelling authority for Federal Court intervention in vaccination matters. While giving due deference to the State authorities, the Supreme Court reserved for the Federal Courts the right to intervene in matters where health and life may be at stake: “…if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.” While Jacobson did not prevail in the Supreme Court, it is to be noted that he never alleged harm or peril of harm; he only alleged that the mandating of the emergency influenza vaccination was ultra vires the state’s authority and the $5.00 fine imposed was unconstitutional. Jacobson was never actually forced to be vaccinated and history shows us that the $5.00 fine was later vacated. Furthermore, the case was decided before the comprehensive Federal pre-emption of drug approval that is now embodied in the laws empowering the FDA.
Forced Vaccination is against the Nuremberg Code and is akin to Eugenics practiced by the Nazis during WWII...There is no true Informed Consent when it comes to vaccines, which are all experimental....there has never been a "blind study" on any vaccine. See Jacobson V Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
As someone approaching the age to collect social security/medicare benefits, which I have paid into since 1969, I am concerned they may use this to force vaccination. No vaccination, no check. The focus today seems to be on our children, and it should be, but I think the seniors are going to be forced also. After all, getting rid of the people that actually REMEMBER what this nation once was is a big to them. The insanity in this world is unbelievable. The "science" behind it all? Were those the same "scientist" that told the masses it was OK to let their children dance in the neighbor hood mosquito spraying that took place in the 60's? Or the same "scientist" that say GMO's, chemtrails, our filthy food chain, a drug for every ill is SAFE? And LOL! the same "scientist" that are now saying eat the fat. We goofed when it came to cholesterol and heart health. It's SUGAR! DUH! So how many millions has "science" killed? God forbid we wake up.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.