Tag Archives: custom and usage

Judge shoots down the vaccination “choice” movement!

LAWYERS WHO FILED A REQUEST TO STOP THE ENFORCEMENT OF SB 277 WERE SHOT DOWN BY THREE SUPREME COURT RULINGS!

By AL Whitney © copyround 2016
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and ParentsAgainstMandatoryVaccines.net  is acknowledged.

 

Supreme Court SealSenate Bill 277 was passed and signed into ‘law’ by Governor Brown last year. This so-called law prevents parents from opting out of California’s vaccination requirements for children entering public or private schools.  Essentially no child can be enrolled without proof that they have been subjected to a litany of unwarranted pharmaceutical products called vaccines.

Before the passage of SB 277 parents could submit a document or form requesting permission to opt out (get an exemption) with the assurance that this permission would be granted. This process has been relied on by California vaccine-savy parents for many years, allowing them to ignore the fact that the ‘state’ had no authority to force them to have their progeny injected with any substance whatsoever. The privilege (the Judge’s words not mine) of opting out created what is referred to as the vaccine “choice” movement, i.e. the parent could chose to vaccinate or not!

Well, on August 26, 2016 Judge Dana Sabraw of the UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA filed a motion in the court denying the request of a group of attorneys (on behalf of multiple people and institutions) to stop the implementation of SB 277. The attorneys had sited several reasons to halt the application of SB 277 including ‘Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion’.

Some of us were expecting this response for the very same reasons the Judge cited, the main one being case law that was established by the 1944 Supreme Court decision Prince vs. Massachusetts. Judge Sabraw not only cited the Prince case, he sited two others as well: Jacobson vs the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905) and Zucht vs. King (1922). None of these three cases has been overturned mainly because the Supremes have refused to hear suits challenging them, which is their prerogative in our current injustice system. In fact, the Rutherford Institute filed a petition to challenge mandatory vaccines in 2011 and the Supremes rejected it.

Here is Judge Sabraw’s official conclusion: Continue reading