May 28, 2020 – If anyone is opposed to state-sponsored mandates, time is of the essence. This is an immediate call to action must happen Now!
The Massachusetts state legislature is moving forward on two Bills (Senate Bill 2359 and the corresponding House Bill 4096) that would critically circumscribe the rules with regard to vaccination and school attendance, from preschool, to private school, to post-secondary–to College. Most troubling, these proposed rules give a blank check to the local government, Department of Health and providers to change the rules at will, while absolving them from liability. If passed, these Bills would also allow Department of Public Health staff and school employees to determine if your child–a Minor–can consent to vaccination–ALL Without Notice to Parents & Without Parental Consent! (For more information, see #5 & #6 below).
Here is the list of grave deficiencies in the Proposed Massachusetts Senate Rule: Senate Bill 2359 in or4der of appearance in the bill. Notably, the proposed House Bill mirrors these deficiencies:
1. No provision for antibody testing, (aka titers) to determine if a child is immune from a particular illness. Such provision would unburden many children and parents from repeat vaccination which could potentially be life threatening and damaging to their health.
2. Another section, (g) (lines 76-77) subsection (c) is problematic, as it requires a person to “agree” with the provision that to exercise their ‘religious exemption’ or a ‘medical exemption’ could result in “serious illness or death of others.” No one is going to agree with that, and the legislature knows it. So why include it? Notably, those who are ‘already immunized’ and therefore “protected” as per the vaccine guidelines and maker claims of protection – there should be no issue with those for whatever reason are not immunized. It is also scientific fact that the “vaccinated” do shed some virus at least up to two weeks after vaccination. The proposed statute is about the immunized, but makes no mention of shedding and infecting others as a result of vaccination.
Notably there is a “Double Standard” that is clear and present in the proposed Bills, as most people now know that vaccine makers” are not liable for catastrophic injuries and deaths under the law; yet there are exponential number of cases of vaccine injury in the VAERS) vaccine injury database) injuries putting huge strains on families and finances, and both state and federal governments who give assistance to qualifying families.
Unfortunately, vaccine manufacturers and providers of vaccine services, DO NOT have to “agree” that serious illness or death can occur because of their product” or the “administration of the product” –yet language in the proposed bill (lines 76-77 ) include that those requiring exemptions must agree that their actions could seriously hurt or kill others? Does this on its face appear discriminatory? Does it appear to favor business over individuals? What about those who are deemed well enough by providers to be vaccinated and then shed the virus after vaccination? One might ask, Should that issue be addressed in the statute?
3. In section (j) (line 89-90) the Senate Bill gives the Department of Public Health (DPH) “exclusive authority” to approve or deny exemption applications. Every parent who has challenged an issue at school or regarding their child can probably relate. With that in mind, could there be a better way for parents to challenge a medical decision they believe would harm their child? That is not spelled out in line 106-107 either.
4 .Section. (l) (line 110-111) appear to be overly broad, which in legal parlance means “over-inclusive.”This section states “DPH “require[s] covered programs to exclude exempted participants during a declared public health emergency” but does not specifically mention, that it must BE the public “health emergency”–that is, an emergency relative to the particular illness/vaccine that was the subject of the exemption. This terminology used by the legislature is not only overbroad–but confusing. The State should NOT want to exclude those who may have an Exemption that is NOT related to the public health emergency–but the legislature makes no provision for this distinction. For example, if someone holds an exemption from chickenpox vaccination, but the public emergency is the smallpox, you wouldn’t want to exclude the exempted people from public places, as there is no relationship between the exemption and the public health emergency.)
5. Section (lines115-117). Minor children do not have right to give consent under the law. Example, contract and statutory rape laws. Parental notification must be required so that “informed consent” or “denial” can be obtained by a legal adult responsible for the child. If a child is administered a vaccine without parental consent, this should rightfully be challenged as government overreaching, and a grave infringement on parental consent rights and civil liberties of parent and child. Not to mention, putting the child at risk for a known or unknown allergy to which could kill or maim the child and put a lifetime burden on the parent who had no knowledge of the child’s consent and no advance warning or change to give consent or withhold it.
6. Lines 117-119- Does anyone believe there should be “Blanket Statutory Immunity” for acting in contravention to what may be a parent’s wishes regarding their child’s medical interventions? See: (lines 117-119).
Without a doubt, the bills’ language appears to comport with what amounts to state sponsored assault and battery upon a minor child.
The legislature should not absolve itself or a provider from any kind of legal liability if they do NOT contact a parent but deem it okay “themselves” to vaccinate a child without a parent’s consent. Every provider will no doubt say that the child was cable of consent, and did so. There is also no doubt that such overreach by the legislature will be constitutionally challenged, as treating parents differently in #2 above–here absolving those who administer a vaccine to a child without parental notification of any liability. Yet this pandemic has set the stage for what has been in the works for many years. That is, mandating that every adult and child get vaccinated to everything, whether contraindicated or not–and despite the growing list of Vaccine Related Injuries (VAERS)–a list which only represents a fraction of the vaccine-related injuries and deaths reported over the years.
We are now at a crucial turning point…
We must now ask, is this how we want to run our public health system? Do we want to give up our personal and parental rights of bodily integrity, liberty, and autonomy? Whatever the answer, the disparate treatment of providers, manufacturers and well meaning parents should not be part of the proposed statutory language.
To learn more: See proposed Massachusetts State Senate Bill: 2359 and proposed Massachusetts House Bill No. 4096.
Weigh in for parental rights and the true Voice of Democracy: contact your MA State Senators & MA State Representatives, and the Committee Members of Public Health. Tell them your concerns. Make your voice heard. Democracy and Your Rights depend on it!
Notice: Information contained in this article and this website is for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal, medical, or professional advise. Consult a qualified adviser as to your legal, business, professional or personal needs.
Copyright, 2020, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. All Rights Reserved.
