As one might expect to see when studying one of the most anti-freedom states in the union, the Connecticut legislature is ready for an April 19 vote on the House and Senate versions of legislation that would revoke the so-called “religious exemption” residents could claim in order to refuse government-mandated injections.
Lee Ann Ducat reports for ChildrensHealthDefense:
Despite strong opposition by some lawmakers, members of Connecticut’s Public Health Committee on March 31 passed SB-568 and HB-6423 out of committee. The bills passed along party lines, with 22 Democrats voting in favor and 11 Republicans opposed.
Because, of course, we all know how evil and “anti-choice” Republicans are…
If the bills pass as currently written, the religious exemption would be removed immediately for children in daycare, preschool and kindergarten through sixth grade in public and private schools. However, religious exemptions already on file for students currently enrolled in grades seven through 12 and college would be upheld and those students would be allowed to remain in school. New students would be unable to obtain religious exemptions.
So this isn’t even a problem set in the pathetic public schools, which, as justification for their edicts, claim that parents and students “choose” to attend the systems even as they overlook the fact that parents and other taxpayers are forced to pay for them, regardless of whether their kids attend. This also applies to private schools, where no payments are made through force, and consumers and the school entrepreneurs are supposed to be able to come to their own agreements.
According to Ducat, concerned CT residents are circulating a petition to stop this assumption of even more government power, a petition that covers five major concerns:
- The repeal of the religious exemption is unnecessary: School vaccine mandates and religious exemptions can co-exist without harming public health according to Connecticut’s own school survey.
- The fetal DNA issue alone makes this a legitimate religious issue, and protecting religious liberty is also a compelling state interest.
- Mandates violate the human right to informed consent.
- Mandates violate international bioethics standards, which prioritize the individual over the state.
- Repealing religious liberty creates religious freedom refugees within the U.S. as families move to states which respect religion.
Each of these is important to note, regardless of one’s locale.
Indeed, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. spelled out for ChildrensHealthDefense in December, the concern for pro-life individuals when it comes to many vaccines – including most of the experimental COVID-19 jabs (most of which are not precisely vaccines) – is imperative and valid.
Mr. Kennedy does yeoman’s work explaining the situation, stating, first:
“FDA allows both human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines. Both types have cancer risks. While both Pfizer and Moderna tested their mRNA vaccine using fetal cells, there are no fetal cells, cell debris or DNA in their final products.”
As a result of the Pfizer and Moderna protocols, people opposed to gaining at the expense of others might find it immoral to accept what was made with the assistance of aborted human beings.
However, according to company documents, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) and Altimmune’s COVID vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line PER-C6, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from these cells. Researchers harvested these cell lines from the eyeball of an 18-week-old human fetus aborted in 1985, and then rendered them immortal by making them cancerous.
And he adds:
The AstraZeneca, Cansino, Gamayela, Vaxart, LongComm and Upitt vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line HEK293, and thus the final vaccine products will contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from the fetal HEK-293 cell line. Scientists harvested this cell line from the kidney of a female Dutch fetus legally aborted in 1973 and then immortalized the cells by rendering them cancerous.
Mr. Kennedy is absolutely right. But the issues of schools, fetal cell lines, and religion are not the end of the problem.
The problem is the assumption that the state can “mandate” anything on anyone.
Not only is there no such power claimed in the Connecticut Constitution or the U.S. Constitution, the act of checking on whether people have been “vaccinated” and their bodies already contain the “vaccine," requires a polis to SEARCH targeted residents and their papers. This, if conducted without a warrant from a judge, is a breach of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and is a breach of Section Seven of the Connecticut Constitution.
In fact, these Connecticut leftists might want to read more of the U.S. Constitution
The assumption of power to find out if people are vaccinated not only breaches the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unwarranted search and seizure, the physical attack of state-mandated vaccinations runs contrary to the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (since there has been no trial to cite a citizen for a “wrong”, there can be no punishment). Philosophers since the Enlightenment have understood that human beings have a “property” ownership in themselves, so the government commandeering a human body to force something into it is clearly a “taking,” which the Fifth Amendment prohibits in part, and which the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits in full.
More fundamental on the Constitutional level is the fact that there is no such thing as a government “public health power.”
This dark fantasy of said so-called “power” stems a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the case of called Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case that saw the court invent a “public health police power” for states that simply doesn’t and cannot exist, and a case that soon saw politicians in Indiana pass a law allowing for the forced sterilization of people the state deemed “feeble-minded”, and subsequently saw 30,000+ people sterilized in 29 states between 1907 and 1939.
And, deeper than even of the Constitution and the truly evil outcome of “Jacobson,” one must note the fact that there is no such thing as “public health.” There is only individual health.
The moment a politician or bureaucrat or so-called “medical ethicist” or self-styled “philosopher” claims that there is something called “public” health, he or she negates logic and individual rights. Logic dictates that the group labeled “public” is actually composed of individuals, and is always reducible to the individual. It is the poison of the consequentialist philosophy to sacrifice the primacy of the individual to a “grouping” the state claims has precedent.
Indeed, that “group” is made of individuals, and by threatening any one of them in order to “secure the health” of the group means that any and all of those individuals is a target, which undermines the faulty theory of “group” protection.
One cannot “protect” the group if attempting to do so assumes that any of the individuals comprising it can be sacrificed.
That is no better than the Aztec practice of sacrificing innocent people to their gods in order to curry favor for the group.
It’s a false religion, and it exists today, in Connecticut.
We’ll see what happens in its tax-funded temple, called the General Assembly, next week.