By T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
California’s state-mandated vaccination of school age children takes effect on July 1, 2016. Senate Bill 277 removes the “personal beliefs” exemption as a basis for parents to opt-out of state mandated “immunization” requirements for schoolchildren. This tyrannical bill wrongfully places the interests of the national vaccine market above the interests of California children; and sadly, this is a symptom of a larger sickness that debilitates the nation. America stands alone; we are the only nation on Earth in which healthcare is dispensed first and foremost to create shareholder value, and only secondarily for health-related reasons, and even then, with little or no regard for patients’ rights as individuals.
SB 277 provides that students will be admitted to school only upon proof of “immunization” against a minimum of ten (10) different childhood diseases. The State hopes to reach a goal of “total immunization,” by injecting into children’s bodies whichever chemicals or ingredients the State, in its sole discretion, deems necessary and appropriate.
The State openly and notoriously declares it will take the extreme and outrageous step of denying California children their fundamental right to go to school — regardless of parents’ “personal beliefs,” including their sincerely held philosophic, conscientious, and religious objections to State-mandated immunization.
If SB 277 takes effect, California will be left with a decidedly “segregated” school system — vaxxed and unvaxxed — where many children will suffer discrimination based on “medical status.” However, a bifurcated school system — vaxxed and unvaxxed — reeks of “separate-but-equal,” and thus, cannot be allowed to stand. Segregation based on “medical status” is every bit as odious as segregation based on “race,” “creed” or “color.”
Children have a constitutional right to an education regardless of “medical status” and parents have a right to exercise “personal beliefs” in opposition to State-mandated immunization requirements by asserting their own various philosophic objections, (“Herd immunity is fraud!”), conscientious objections, (“My family is Vegan!”), and religious objections, (“Aborted fetal cells?–No way!”).
In short, SB 277 violates the children’s constitutional right to go to school and the parents’ constitutional right to freely exercise “personal beliefs.” There is no public health crisis in California; and even if there were, this supposed “crisis” must be subordinate to civil liberties, personal freedoms, and the rights of the individual.
The First Amendment protects the individual in his or her free expression of “personal beliefs” — especially those beliefs that run contrary to the State. The First Amendment allows individuals to freely exercise “personal beliefs” and freely make their own joyful noise without leave or hindrance from the State. On July 1, Californians will be required to surrender their First Amendment right to exercise “personal beliefs” — i.e., their sincerely held philosophic, conscientious, and religious objections to State-mandated immunization and Californians will further be required to surrender their children’s constitutional right to go to school.
But Californians should not be placed in the untenable position of having to choose between the right to educate their children and the right to oppose State-mandated immunization. Ultimately, society must decide whether the State has a greater interest in educating children or in vaccinating them.
Notably, vaccine makers make absolutely, positively zero guarantees, warranties, or promises, express or implied, of any kind whatsoever. Bending to the will of the national vaccine market, the State-mandated “immunization” program is built on a faulty premise, i.e., that vaccination always results in “immunization,” but this is flatly false, as evidenced by the “zero-promise warranty” from vaccine makers.
It is worth noting that SB 277 is conspicuously silent as to the words “vaccine” or “vaccination.” Remarkable as it sounds, neither the words “vaccine” nor “vaccination” ever appear at SB 277, and this is surprising! Most notably, SB 277 uses only the term “immunization,” and this is quite significant because, of course, there is a world of difference between “vaccination” and “immunization.”
The term “immunization” is a conclusion that a disease-fighting shield is in effect; whereas, by contrast, the term “vaccination” refers to a one-time medical event that (supposedly) leads to “immunization.” The language of Sacramento lawmakers is clear and unambiguous — no vaccines required! SB 277 requires only “immunization,” and as it turns out, all children already come naturally “immunized.”
When it comes to the children’s best interests, it is the parents, not the State, who shall have the right to make healthcare decisions. SB 277 wrongfully removes the parents as decision-makers and wrongfully delegates this important duty to the State.
Vaccines maim and kill children. The horror of this reality is mind-numbing. And, in too many instances, vaccines turn out to be more injurious and more deadly than the diseases for which the vaccines were administered in the first place. For example, over the past ten years, the number of schoolchildren who died from the MMR vaccine far outpaces the number of measle deaths (if any). The MMR vaccine has a disastrous “success” rate of killing approximately one American child, every month, for the last ten years; sadly, when it comes to measles “immunization,” it’s hard to tell the poison from the cure.
Back in 1986, hoping to stabilize the national vaccine market, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and since its creation, the national Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, (“VICP”), has paid-out more than three billion dollars (taxpayer money) on vaccine injury and wrongful death claims.
The Act protects the national vaccine market by forbidding would-be plaintiffs from suing vaccine makers at the county courthouse; the Act instead funnels plaintiffs into an arbitration quagmire — which has no legal mechanism to subpoena industry documents that might tend to prove things like vaccine design defects or manufacturing defects. The Act further protects vaccine makers by relieving them of having to pay monetary compensation to vaccine victims; the Act instead saddles taxpayers with the burden of funding injury compensation. The Act stabilizes the national vaccine market by allowing vaccine makers to dodge jury trials and class action lawsuits; not surprisingly, since Congress passed the Act back in 1986, the number of federally recommended vaccines has tripled.
The Act bestows upon the national vaccine market what amounts to almost total immunity from liability — because vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” In other words, even if properly designed and manufactured in strict accordance with FDA rules, vaccines nevertheless remain “unavoidably unsafe.”
“But for” the Act, jury trials and class action lawsuits would destabilize the national vaccine market — then overwhelm and capsize it — because vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” Without the Act’s protection, Merck, Pfizer, and GSK would lose every lawsuit and in six months be driven out-of-business by personal injury lawyers.
But tragically, instead of removing “unavoidably unsafe” products from the marketplace, Congress instead removed the specter of liability, and this in turn removed all incentive for vaccine safety. And now, when vaccines kill or maim, vaccine makers pay no monetary damages to the victims — because Congress foisted that duty upon the American taxpayer — who must “bail out” vaccine makers for their deadly products.
Even if a vaccine is free of design defect and manufacturing defect, it nevertheless remains “unavoidably unsafe,” and yet, the popular media pretends that vaccines are “safe and effective,” but this is a blatant falsehood. All vaccines, legally speaking, are deemed “unavoidably unsafe,” and for this reason alone, parents are wise to opt-out of mandatory immunization because sometimes, indeed, all too often, vaccines go wrong.
Perhaps most disturbing of all, when vaccines go wrong, vaccine makers are utterly incapable of explaining “why.” But this comes as no surprise because vaccine makers are just as incapable of explaining “how” their vaccines (supposedly) bring about immunization.
It’s wise to view all vaccine makers with mistrust and suspicion because: (i) vaccine makers do not guarantee “immunization;” (ii) persons injured by vaccines cannot sue vaccine makers at the county courthouse; (iii) taxpayers must subsidize the vaccine maker’s design defects, manufacturing defects, personal injury claims and wrongful death claims; and (iv) all vaccines are deemed “unavoidably unsafe” due to the ever-present risk of death or great bodily injury; and (v) vaccine makers cannot explain how their products work, nor why they fail.
The truth is, medical science is a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body. Science cannot explain “why” vaccines kill, nor can science predict “who” will next suffer vaccine injuries or “when.” Under a simple cost-benefit analysis, the “costs” associated with vaccines clearly outweigh any “benefit” — because vaccines come with no immunization guarantee and instead carry the very palpable risk of death.
Stop mandatory vaccination in California! Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the government out of your body.
~~TMP April 30, 2016