Although Trump may not force us to take the vaccine, the State Health Official can. It was this case that allowed for the forced sterilization. Unless certain states do not cooperate with the NWO eugenics/population reduction goal, it appears this situation may result in physical confrontations.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandatory-vaccination-legal-time-epidemic/2006-04
"When determining the legality of a statute enacted to protect public health and safety, the Court found it immaterial that a portion of the medical community thought the vaccination worthless or even injurious. The state has the right to choose between opposing medical theories and to refer the matter to a board composed of persons residing in the affected location who are qualified to make a determination. The courts do not become involved in legislation formed under the state’s police power as long as it relates substantially to public health, morals, or safety and is not a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by fundamental law [5]. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether or not the vaccine is actually effective, so long as it is the belief of state authorities that the mandatory vaccine will promote common welfare and is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power [6]. It is of paramount necessity that a community have the right to protect itself from an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members."
"The only exception to a mandatory vaccination is an offer of apparent or reasonably certain proof to the state’s board of health that the vaccination would seriously impair health or probably cause death [8]."
From the same article:
“The Court decision in Jacobson v Massachusetts is just over 100 years old and has not been revisited in any meaningful way. The Court follows the doctrine of stare decisis, which directs it to follow existing judicial decisions when the same points arise in litigation unless there is sufficient justification for departing from precedent [7]. In this case the Jacobson Court’s ruling has stood—not allowing a single individual to refuse vaccination while he or she remains within the general population on the grounds that to make such an exception would strip the legislative branch of its function to care for the public health and safety when threatened by epidemic disease [8].”
Commentary:
1) According to the article, stare decisis (ie., case law precedent) does not necessarily apply if it can be shown that there is sufficient reason (eg., new points arise in litigation, such as freedom of religion in the present case).
In other words, the cause of action regarding the unconstitutionality of mandatory vaccination in 2020 might be blocked if it arose from a 14th Amendment claim, but the same cause of action arising from freedom of religion is an entirely different argument, and therefore could be considered.
2) Note also, the the legal opinion above regarding the alleged constitutionality of forced vaccination prevails only against those who “remain within the general population.”
This seems to imply that, so long as you were willing to remain quarantined, you would not be forced to be vaccinated.
But indefinite voluntary house arrest is a poor consolation, and a level of tyranny hitherto unknown in world history.
3) And insofar as such a vaccine would contain aborted fetal matter, obliging every Catholic to reject it, such a policy would be tantamount to the worldwide indefinite suppression of the Catholic religion.
4) Finally, I note the similarity in the “public interest” rationale allegedly justifying mandatory vaccination, and China’s policy of mandatory abortion: in both cases, the same public interest rationale fails to trump the moral obligation to refuse either requirement.
PS: The one gray area, promoted even by SSPX priests, is a paper from the Vatican under JPII, which more or less declares that vaccines using cells from aborted embryos lines constitutes “indirect and remote cooperation in evil,” and more or less opened the door to use them.
I am not competent or confident of working my way through the moral theology of that one, but present the argument merely for the sake of objectivity. Needless to say, I have grave reservations regarding the moral uprightness of the arguments adduced in that article in favor of using vaccines derived from abortive fetal cells.
Topic: What are we to do? (Read 2216 times)