A great find…
Am J Public Health. 2005 April; 95(4): 581–590.
Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather’s Public Health Law
The ruling and the argument:
Take for example this: Justice Harlan stated “There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.2(p29)” Read more…
This is interesting also: “…the Court said that it was the legislature’s prerogative to determine how to control the epidemic, as long as it did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner.2,39,40 Vaccination was a reasonable means of control: “The state legislature proceeded upon the theory which recognized vaccination as at least an effective if not the best known way in which to meet and suppress the evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperiled an entire population.”2(p31)”
For example, it noted that the law should not be understood to apply to anyone who could show that vaccination would impair his health or probably cause his death.
VLA Comment: The above ruling was meant to support the State’s position. But if we look at it as applying to both sides the question that this discussion raises regarding SB 277 & SB 792 is were we under the pressure of great dangers? Additionally, “Effective”Court ruling recognized that the vaccine needs “to be at least – effective”. The CDC admits the flu shot is not effective. We have prove that the vaccines are not effective by admission of the CDC (flu shot, ie.) and the fact that a percentage of the participants in both the measles and the whooping couph outbreak were fully vaccinated individuals.
Secondly: “legislature proceeded upon the theory which recognized vaccination as at least an effective if not the best known way in which to meet and suppress the evils…that imperiled an entire generation” Was the entire generation “imperiled”?. Can the vaccines which are ineffective meet and supress that which is evil. Is the measles virus evil when studies have shown that getting the early childhood measles protects against cancer. Moreover biotechnologist are genetically engineering the natural measles because they have discovered that getting the natural measles virus may cure cancer.
Perhaps we might argue that the theory of which the California legislators proceeded upon is faulty… that vaccines are effective. This theory is challenged by independent, non industry related scientists, researchers and doctors. If challenged the court would have to consider the current pro and con studies and science materials to see if the “theory” that the legislators followed is sound or questionable. We have the opportunity to submit our science.
California SB792 law
Re: SB 792: Let’s be clear what our soundbite concept should be: What we should be pointing out to the Governor is that SB 792 is A FIRST IN THE NATION BILL….A BILL IF PASSED INTO LAW, GIVES THE POWER TO THE STATE, the Government, TO MANDATE MEDICAL TREATMENTS, in this case namely vaccines. This is a law that sets precedence. It is the foundation bill/law to facilitate, in the future, other medical treatments….such as forced mental health drug implants, forced chemotherapy, lobotomies, etc.
The American History Of Compulsory Vaccination and its Ties to Eugenics By Att. Jonathan Emord
Amidst hysteria arising from a relatively small number of cases of measles (some 600 last year and some 150 this year), law makers would take away everyone’s rights to liberty and personal autonomy.
Given the likelihood that at least some of these draconian measures will pass, it is wise to reflect upon our history to see from whence this peculiar deviation from ordinary protection for liberty rights comes. It is also wise to appreciate that the law favoring compulsory vaccination is now scientifically anachronistic and that modern understanding of immunology enables us to employ measures that reduce the risk of disease carriage and transmission without forcibly tying down children and adults and injecting them with substances they do not wish to have in their bodies.
It will surprise many to learn that the concept of compulsory vaccination has national socialist roots in our country that spring from the same drive for a “master race” that led the Nazis to embrace eugenics (including forced sterilization) and dysgenics (including execution of the Jews and others deemed “undesirable”). It will surprise many to learn that the person most responsible for eliminating constitutional protections against such intrusions (the Fourteenth Amendment) is one regarded as among America’s greatest jurists and legal scholars, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes believed in eugenics and even dysgenics (execution of those whom he regarded as “feeble-minded,” “undesirable,” and “inadequate”). READ MORE..
