Category Archives: LEGISLATION

FDA Declares Homeopathy ILLEGAL

FDA’s guidance document, which lays out the agency’s current position on the regulation of homeopathic drugs, says:

  1. Any homeopathic drug that has not been considered “generally recognized as safe and effective” (GRAS/E) is considered a new drug;
  2. FDA has not determined that any homeopathic drugs are GRAS/E;
  3. A new drug cannot be marketed unless it goes through the FDA’s approval process;
  4. No homeopathic drugs have gone through FDA approval nor can any producer afford to take them through the approval process.



11 year old children allowed to be vaccinated w/o parental consent or knowledge

D.C. Council approves bill allowing children to get vaccines without parents’ consent

A bill passed by the D.C. Council on Tuesday would allow children as young as age 11 to obtain vaccinations without their parents’ consent.

The bill, which was approved 12 to 1, requires that the doctor send the vaccination record in such cases to the child’s school, rather than to the parents, and seek compensation directly from the insurance company without involving the parents.

Read More….


State Bar Passes Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Recommendation

Mary Beth Morrissey, chair of the bar association’s Health Law Section’s Task Force on COVID-19, said in a statement after the vote on Saturday, “The authority of the state to respond to a public health crisis is well-established in constitutional law.”


Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 31 (1905) SCOTUS: FORCED VACCINATION

What do Pennsylvania’s Unconstitutional Lockdown Orders,
Jacobson v. Massachusetts and our SB277 Case have in common?

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 31 (1905) is a case which has ruled public health police powers over the past 100 years. However, while this case has been used to justify state governments making laws in times of emergency regarding vaccines, with little regard for civil liberties, AVFCA has long argued that the details of this case, do not warrant such and that times have evolved.

At the time the Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, stated that “the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.” The Jacobson line of cases articulated that (a) a self-contained township; (b) could require an individual to be vaccinated against one highly contagious, airborne disease; (c) or pay a fine; (d) during a proven-to-be- serious outbreak of the same disease; (e) before the era of widespread travel made such mandates less meaningful. Jacobson was also decided decades before the Supreme Court articulated our modern constitutional construct for handling bodily autonomy cases.

The city of Cambridge, MA, put this law into effect, among adults, for the smallpox vaccine. Jacobson refused to get vaccinated, and refused to pay the $5 fine. Jacobson ultimately lost the case and his appeal, but in turn was not forced to be vaccinated. He was just forced to pay the $5 fine. However, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, has been used in numerous cases to enforce broad police powers by public health departments and cities across the nation.

In 2016, A Voice for Choice brought forward a lawsuit, Love v California,to argue that removing the Personal Belief Exemption from school vaccination requirements was unconstitutional in three ways: Bodily Autonomy, Parent Rights and Education is a fundamental right, each of which had been upheld by the Supreme Court individually. Specifically, AVFC argued that the court must adhere to strict scrutiny when deciding the merits of the case. We knew the other side would use Jacobson v. Massachusetts, to argue their case, so we preempted that by arguing that the courts and the world has evolved over the past 100 years, and that strict scrutiny had to be applied. While the judges in our case did not agree with this argument, last month Judge, William Stickman IV, from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, issued an opinion [Read Opinion Here] declaring the Pennsylvania Shelter In Place and Lockdown Executive Orders unconstitutional, specifically discussing how Courts have evolved over the past 100 years since the Jacobson case to be more vigilant in the protection of civil liberties and the need to apply strict scrutiny to the protection of civil liberties. While this opinion is not published and from a lower court, so will not be able to be cited, it gives hope that other judges will follow suit and apply current day constitutional jurisprudence when deciding on cases deliberating on civil liberties and public health and vaccines.

For those not wanting to read the 66 Pennsylvania page opinion, here are some key excerpts regarding the standard of review it would apply to the case:

“Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties. As a general matter, this development has seen a jurisprudential shift whereby federal courts have given greater deference to considerations of individual liberties, as weighted against the exercise of state police powers. That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. While Jacobson has been cited by some modern courts as ongoing support for a broad, hands-off deference to state authorities in matters of health and safety, other courts and commentators have questioned whether it remains instructive in light of the intervening jurisprudential developments.” Page 13

“Over the last century, federal courts have developed a regimen of tiered scrutiny of examining most constitutional issues-rational basis scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. The appropriate standard depends on the nature of the claim and, specifically, the nature of the right allegedly infringed.” Page 11

“As the Supreme Court has observed “[t]he Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.” Home Building & Loan Ass’n. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S.398, 425 (1934).” Page 29

“The [Stay at Home] orders are such an inversion of the usual American experience that the Court believes that no less than the highest scrutiny should be used….” Page 47

“The Court declares, therefore, that the stay-at-home components of Defendant’s’ orders were and are unconstitutional. Board population-wide lockdowns are such a dramatic inversion of the concept of liberty in a free society as to be nearly presumptively unconstitutional unless the government can truly demonstrate that they burden no more liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve an important government end. The draconian nature of a lockdown may render this a high bar, indeed.” Page 48

While this opinion does not overrule Jacobson v Massachusetts, it gives hope that more judges will understand the necessity of applying strict scrutiny to cases where civil liberties are infringed by public health orders, so that cases like A Voice for Choice’s SB277 case would have had a fair chance.

If you found this information helpful and appreciate the work A Voice for Choice Advocacy is doing, please support us by making a donation today.

HHS (FEDS) takes over vaccines through administrative rules

DID THE FEDERAL AGENCY HHS…through administrative rule take over VACCINES….that authority which belongs to the States

Some excerpts:

The enactment of The PREP Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness 2005) was declared by the Secretary of HHS on March 10, 2020.

This allowed our nation to address the COVID “pandemic” by extending legal protections to manufacturers of medical supplies and equipment, plus allowing our federal government to harness the resources necessary to combat this virus.

This also extended to the states for them to enact Emergency Powers that restricted businesses, social gatherings, focusing medical responses to COVID only.

At the same time, the Secretary of HHS forwarded his intentions via a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to remove shoulder injury (SIRVA) and syncope (fainting) from the NVICP, thus any claims for injuries resulting in shoulder injuries or the result of injured incurred after falling because of fainting.  READ MORE…

UK: Changes in Human Medicine Regulation to Roll Out Covid 19 Vaccines (unlicensed)

Consultation document: changes to Human Medicine Regulations to support the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines

A temporary authorization of the supply of an unlicensed vaccine could be given by the UK’s licensing authority under regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations (see below). A COVID-19 vaccine would only be authorized in this way if the UK’s licensing authority was satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the safety, quality and efficacy of the vaccine. ‘Unlicensed’ does not mean ‘untested’: this temporary authorization process exists to address the possibility that, in certain situations of public health need, the licensing authority may consider that the balance of risk and benefit to patients justifies the temporary supply of the relevant vaccine pending the issue of a product licence. Regulation 345 of the Human Medicine Regulations transposes into UK law a requirement of EU law that key actors in the medicines supply chain cannot generally be sued in the civil courts for the consequences resulting from the use of an unlicensed product, or a new use of a licensed product, that a national licensing authority is recommending in order to deal with certain specific health threats. READ More...

VLA Comment: It is a long compilation by UK Goverment changing regulations to accommodate worldwide vaccination of Covid Vaccine…but I don’t see “mandating” vaccines, unless I missed it by their use of more subtle language.  2 things we have to look out for….

1) I believe in the USA the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) will be orchestrating the distribution.We should be alert…alert Trump… to make sure the Military is not going to be used as the usual guinea pigs to get this vaccine,  or the result will be after all the money Trump spent on the military…he will have a lot of incoherent and potentially nano-chipped Deep State controlled Military. (same goes for any country that is planning on mandating this vaccine to their military…potentially then there will be AI Global control of all militaries…sounds like science fiction…but don’t dismiss it.

2) In the USA it is the states that control vaccines and “mandating” not the Federal Government.  Be far sighted…will the school children be “mandated”. Can we get on a plane without it, etc.

Virginia (Anti gun, pro late term abortion) Gov. Northam)providing Nationwide Vaccine Mandate Template

H.B. 1090, as amended, WAS PASSED into law during a special session held by the state legislature on Apr. 22, 2020 during the COVID-19 lockdown. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, MD signed the bill into law with an effective date of July 1, 2021.6

The new law automatically adds up to 10 more doses of five vaccines for daycare and school children, including vaccines that the Virginia legislature previously voted against adding to the schedule, such as the very expensive meningococcal vaccine and HPV vaccine for boys.

Because a law was passed in 2020 that allows state public health officials to automatically add every CDC recommended vaccine to the list of vaccines required for daycare and school entry—without public hearings or a vote by elected representatives in the legislature.

VLA Comment:  This includes and confirms support for Bill Gates’s intention to put the Covid-19 RNA/DNA untested nanotech vaccine as mandatory for school children.