“The freedoms of conscience and of religious exercise are foundational rights protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by Federal statutes. These laws ensure, for example, that Americans are not compelled to speak, to salute the flag, to join a national church, or to vote for a particular candidate. They also ensure that as a general matter, the Federal government may not discriminate against its citizens for the views they hold.”
Among the long list of exemptions in federal law from compulsory health care and services on THE VERY FIRST PAGE is “immunizations.”
On the second page is a quote from United States v. Seeger, a 1965 Supreme Court case.
“[B]oth morals and sound policy require that the State should not violate the conscience of the individual. All our history gives confirmation to the view that liberty of conscience has a moral and social value which makes it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state. So deep in its significance and vital, indeed, is it to the integrity of man’s moral and spiritual nature that nothing short of the self-preservation of the state should warrant its violation; and it may well be questioned whether the state which preserves its life by a settled policy of violation of the conscience of the individual will not in fact ultimately lose it by the process.”
WOW! Now that’s a Supreme Court I can support!
How about this from Trump’s Executive Order of May 8, 2017? Federal law
“protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one’s beliefs.”
One of the LISTED “Problems that the Proposed Rule Seeks to Address,” is “being required to administer or receive certain vaccinations derived from aborted fetal tissues as a condition of work or receipt of educational services.”READ MORE…
The Jerusalem Post recently reported that Prof. Leonid Eidelman, chairman of the Israel Medical Association and the next president of the World Medical Association, opposes mandatory flu vaccinations for doctors, and he opposes identifying which doctors have been vaccinated for the flu, and which ones have not. VLA COMMENT: As good as this sounds…notice he is opposing the vaccine for Doctors…but not for patients…but I think people will get the implications that if Doctors and Nurses don’t want it…people won’t want it.
The flu vaccine is, by far, the most prosperous vaccine produced and sold in the U.S., with over 300 million doses produced annually. It is also the leading vaccine, by far, injuring and killing people as evidenced by the quarterly Department of Justice (DOJ) reports of vaccine injury and death compensations by the Vaccine Court. In the U.S., one cannot sue a pharmaceutical company for injuries or deaths related to vaccines. READ MORE…
NEW YORK is known to not only deny religious exemptions but to have created a limit on accepting them.
Just call and say…. co-sponsor S6141c or A8123a
FIND Representatives by zip code-NY http://nyassembly.gov/mem/ (A8123a)
Find my Senator by Zip Code–NY https://www.nysenate.gov/find-my-senator (S6141c)
You might also communicate to the Republican leaders of the houses that President Trump has set up a new office at the HHS for religious freedom (in case they haven’t heard) so that Republicans will vote as a unified party on the issue of religious freedom and vaccines. Although the new agency only mentions vaccines as it pertains to religious freedom and medicaid, the head of the Agency, who I understand is a deeply religious acolyte requests that all concerned with being denied religious freedom as it pertains to vaccines, send in a complaint.
Section #9 covers: state or local government agency that is responsible for administering health care • State or local government income assistance or human service agency • Hospital • Medicaid and Medicare provider • Physician or other health care professional in private practice with patients assisted by Medicaid • Family health center • Community mental health center • Alcohol and drug treatment center • Nursing home • Foster care home • Public and private adoption or foster care agency • Day care center • Senior citizen center • Nutrition program • Any entity established under the Affordable Care Act • HMO • Pharmacy • Homeless shelter •Health researcher
Name the health care or social service provider involved, and describe the acts or omissions, you believe violated conscience or religious freedom laws or regulations
File a Conscience or Religious Freedom Complaint Online
Open the OCR Complaint Portal and select the type of complaint you would like to file.
Complete as much information as possible, including:
Information about you, the complainant
Details of the complaint
Any additional information that might help OCR when reviewing your complaint
You will then need to electronically sign the complaint and complete the consent form. After completing the consent form you will be able to print out a copy of your complaint to keep for your records.
File a Conscience or Religious Freedom Complaint in Writing
File a Complaint Using the Conscience or Religious Freedom Complaint Form Package
Print and mail the completed complaint and consent forms to:
Centralized Case Management Operations
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Room 509F HHH Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Email the completed complaint and consent forms to OCRMail@hhs.gov (Please note that communication by unencrypted email presents a risk that personally identifiable information contained in such an email, may be intercepted by unauthorized third parties)
File a Complaint without the Conscience or Religious Freedom Complaint Form Package
If you prefer, you may submit a written complaint in your own format by either:
Mail to
Centralized Case Management Operations
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Room 509F HHH Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Name, full address and telephone number of the person, agency or organization you believe discriminated against you
A brief description of what happened, including how, why, and when you believe your (or someone else’s) conscience or religious freedom rights were violated
Any other relevant information
Your signature and date of complaint
The name of the person on whose behalf you are filing if you are filing complaint for someone else
You may also include:
Any special accommodations for us to communicate with you about this complaint
Contact information for someone who can help us reach you if we cannot reach you directly
If you have filed your complaint somewhere else and where you’ve filed
If you mail a complaint, be sure to send it to:
Centralized Case Management Operations
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Room 509F HHH Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20201
You do not need to sign the complaint and consent forms when you submit them by email because submission by email represents your signature.
Language assistance services for OCR matters are available and provided free of charge. OCR services are accessible to persons with disabilities.
Filing Complaints with Other Agencies
If you have a complaint about housing, law enforcement, labor, education, or employment discrimination, OCR does not investigate these types of complaints. Find out where to get help
VLA Comment: There are two points that I would like to mention that is missing in this short film. What is not mentioned is that it is toxic agriculture that is disrupting the hormones, in utero. Dr. Peter Montague founder and editor of Rachel’s Hazzaradous Newsletter has been covering this topic of hormonal dysruption and its effect on gender. Archived website
Christopher Morales, a California criminal defense attorney, provided some legal insight into this complex matter. “The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits anyone from possessing guns if they use or are addicted to cannabis,” Morales explained.
“The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits anyone from possessing guns if they use or are addicted to cannabis.”
The exact wording of the federal law prohibits any “unlawful user” or addict of cannabis (or any other federally restricted substance) from purchasing guns, even if that individual resides in a state with legal medical or adult-use cannabis laws.
A Nevada medical marijuana patient named S. Rowan Wilson challenged the ruling after she attempted to purchase a firearm for self-defense in 2011. When the gun store refused to sell to her, she filed a lawsuit challenging the federal statute against gun ownership by a lawful marijuana patient.
The case went all the way to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, where, on August 31, 2016, Chief District Judge Gloria Navarro ruled that a federal government ban of gun sales to abiding state-legal medical marijuana patients does not violate the Second Amendment. READ MORE…
Recently, the Honolulu Police Department in Hawaii has sent a series of letters to residents who use medical marijuana, informing them that they are disqualified from owning firearms, even if they were obtained legally and in compliance with state and federal law. If the medical marijuana users refuse to turn over their firearms, then presumably, they will face state-sanctioned violence until the guns are removed.
“This letter is to inform you that under the provisions of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Section 134-7(a) you are disqualified from firearms ownership, possession, or controlling firearms. Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition,” the letter reads. It goes on to say that residents who use medical marijuana “have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms, permit and ammunition to the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) or otherwise transfer ownership.”
Excerpts: In a Florida case described by Dr. Lyons-Weiler, a mother was still under the effects of medication following birth by cesarean section, when a nurse entered her room asking if she was ready for the shots for the new baby. The mother was confused. Ready now? Ready in general? She didn’t understand and she told that to the nurse.
Without any response to her confusion, the nurse proceeded to call Child Protective Services and the baby was seized by the state.
Hospitals need to be called out on this, says Dr. Lyons-Weiler. He recommends that, if a parent is threatened with CPS for refusing a vaccine, the parent should call the medical director of the facility and tell that person that they intend to seek damages.
[Note: in many of the stories that we have covered, we have seen that such threats, including any threats to sue or file malpractice charges, almost always result in the prompt removal of the child by CPS within 24 hours, and false allegations made by hospital staff that the mother has Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/Factious Disorder.]
The doctor addresses a situation that more and more parents are finding themselves in – the refusal of the hospital staff to allow the parents and their baby to leave the hospital. Dr. Lyons-Weiler doesn’t mince words.
Welcome to the Australian state of Victoria, where the minister of health, Jill Hennessy, has just put all doctors under the gun. There are currently 41 vaccinations administered to children in Australia between birth and 4 years of age – more if you are of Aboriginal or Torres-Strait Islander descent.
Vaccinating every child has become so important to Hennessey, she’s declared that a doctor who writes an exemption will be ignored. In fact, that doctor, by implication, will be considered “rogue.”
He could have his license to practice stripped. He could be prosecuted. He could be denied a way to earn a living.
Instead, in order to allow a child an exemption from taking vaccines, evidence must be shown from some sort of medical registry. How this system will work is not clear.
Harvard Immunologist to Legislators: Unvaccinated Children Pose ZERO Risk to Anyone
OPEN LETTER TO LEGISLATORS
Dear Legislator:
My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.
Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?
It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide.
You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. READ MORE… INCLUDES LIST OF VACCINES THAT DO NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
Watch video (two hours and well worth it for a one time education)
VLA Comment: Clarified a lot. Question though:re: IMF how does China in regards to BRICS fit in…are they going to merge someday?China is in both…tells you something. The United States may be well served to join both like China
