The battle will be in California.
(Deep behind the health freedom lines in Occupied California where you can choose your gender, and you DO NOT have to be a US citizen to vote, but your kids MUST be vaccinated?)
After fifteen years as an activist, this may be my most controversial article EVER. Those on the right may hate what I have to say. Those on the left may hate what I have to say. But this is about being REAL.
Before you criticize what I say, I want you to THINK. This is about fighting under a banner of principle, rather than Party.
Something NEW Happened…
On Friday, January 26, 2018 the Trump Administration published in the Federal Register it’s proposed guidelines regarding “Conscience Rights in Health Care.” (It’s 51 pages long! I read it so YOU don’t have to!
My God, it is a thing of beauty.
And it is BRILLIANT. Brilliant in a way I could never have imagined because it allies us with powerful forces and makes us bullet-proof. Those who argue against it will sound like fascists. (Which is exactly what they are.)
The opening paragraph is remarkable:
“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.”
Are you starting to understand the plan of attack?
Further on in the document there are the following passages.
“In addition to these provider protections, multiple Federal health programs contain conscience protections for patients and parents of children who have objections to certain tests or treatments . . . Similarly, although Congress granted HHS authority to conduct research, experiments, and demonstrations related to occupational illnesses in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, such authority did not include the power to require medical examinations, immunizations, or treatment for those who object thereto on religious grounds.”
In other words, rights of conscience and religious freedom have long been a part of our medical culture. It’s just that the past few administrations seem to have forgotten that in their rush for pharma dollars.
Here’s where I think people on both the right and left are likely to go crazy.
The most common complaints so far regarding conscience and religious freedom have to do with medical professionals who do not want to take part in abortions or assisted suicide.
I want to be clear I am not arguing for or against abortion or assisted suicide. What I an arguing FOR is the RIGHT OF EVERY PERSON TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS BASED ON THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS VALUES.
In the proposed rule it is very clear that this principle is to be applied BROADLY.
“The Department proposes to uphold the maximum protection for the rights of conscience and the broadest prohibition on discrimination as provided by Federal, State, or local law as consistent with the Constitution.”
If you “believe” it, the government wants you to be free to live in accordance with your values.
To make it clear, the media will paint this as an anti-abortion measure, or preventing people from assisting in the suicide of those with terminal diseases. But that is demonstrably false. It is protecting the rights of those who do not want to be a part of such procedures. Freedom of conscience for those who question vaccines will be able to draft in the wake of these issues.
Further on in the article in a list of laws providing for patient objections to receiving health care services and among that list is “pediatric vaccination.”
Don’t believe that this is aimed squarely at California’s mandatory vaccination law, and others like it around the country, or in the process of being proposed? 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.”
Looks like somebody has California in the cross-hairs, especially since a large part of the discussion is about how California has tried to frustrate those people who do not want abortion covered in their health plans for religious or conscience reasons.
California has been VERY BAD in matters of conscience and in following federal law. The recent proclamation by Governor Jerry Brown that we are a “Sanctuary State” from federal immigration laws means that in effect we are an “outlaw state.”
I’ve learned that Trump attacks on multiple fronts at once.
I expect Trump to go after California sanctuary laws, the violation of conscience and religious rights for those medical professionals who object to participating in abortion and assisted suicide, and mandatory vaccine laws which have NO PROVISION FOR CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM on the basis that THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
I’m halfway convinced the Trump ACTUALLY WROTE THIS NEXT PASSAGE. I laughed so hard I had tears coming out of my eyes. He IS the MASTER PERSUADER.
“In supporting a more diverse medical field, the proposed rule would create ancillary benefits for patients. The proposed rule would assist patients seeking counselors who would share their deepest held convictions. Some patients will appreciate the ability to speak frankly about their own convictions concerning questions that touch upon life and death and treatment preferences with a doctor best suited to provide such treatment. A pro-life woman may seek a pro-life ob-gyn to advise her on decisions relating to her fertility and reproductive choices. A pro-vaccination parent may seek a pediatrician who shares his views.“
Do you understand the brilliance of that passage? The pro-vax parent should have the right to consult a pro-vax doctor. It implies that the anti-vax position is the more reasonable one. It also suggests that in the future, the pro-vax parent will be in the minority.
But it really doesn’t matter, because we should all have the rights of conscience and religious freedom.