She Listened To Doctors About Which Vaccines To Get. Her School Kicked Her Out.

'What these school districts are doing is flat-out discriminatory and dangerous.'

A 16-year-old girl is fighting back after she was kicked out of school for not getting a vaccine doctors say could harm her.

The girl and her mother filed a lawsuit against Oceanside School District in New York, alleging that the district is punishing her for acting on the advice of her doctors. Sarah Doe, a pseudonym that’s also used in her lawsuit, was barred from attending class after opting to skip the final two doses of the Hepatitis B vaccine on the advice of six doctors and a nurse practitioner, according to to the lawsuit.

Sarah told The Daily Wire in an interview on her situation. She says she was a standout flag football player, but now she can’t play organized sport either. She misses her friends and teammates and feels like part of her identity has been ripped from her.

“I was known for flag football…and now it’s like, I’m like a nobody because I can’t be in school,” she said.

Sarah’s medical problems started back in 2019, her mother Jane Doe, also a pseudonym, told The Daily Wire. That’s when New York repealed parents’ ability to obtain exemptions for certain vaccines required for students to attend school. Jane said it was a very difficult decision, but after homeschooling Sarah did not work for them, Sarah caught up on her vaccines.

Over two months, Sarah received 18 vaccine doses. Jane said the overload of the vaccines sparked severe autoimmune conditions, kidney issues, debilitating migraines, continuous rashes, and a diagnosis of Von Willebrand’s disease, a bleeding disorder where blood does not clot properly. Sarah recalled becoming septic at the hospital.

“It’s just her body responding to all those vaccines at once that just shut her down almost,” Jane said...

You have it backwards. The Federal Government is already controlling healthcare, and are doing do through Medicare & Medicaid.

RFK Jr. is reversing that control back to the people. At the same time he is restricting the use of certain chemicals in food substances that are causing injury to humans. Or should business be allowed to just poison people with wanton disregard? Would you just accept that you, your wife or your child developed a fatal condition or death from the food consumed?

If you think that newborns should be receiving 18 vaccines under the age of 1 in one visit, then justify your belief while explaining away why a number of childhood illness are now being seen, that were never seen previously, and the numbers are steadily increasing. Why are parents threatened with Child Protective Services intervention if they refuse to have their child receive all of the vaccines the doctors are recommending? Since when did doctors get the power to do use the threat of government to force compliance of the doctors dictates? Since when did schools get the authority to deny children entry into school, overruling their doctors advice?:

She Listened To Doctors About Which Vaccines To Get. Her School Kicked Her Out.

BTW, Covid vaccines were mandated to return to work, even though a drug approved for EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), which is in itself is illegal.

Count me OUT!!!

That is exactly what RFK Jr. is fighting for. Our right to refuse, along with our right to stop the use of these chemicals that are not healthy for humans.

Why are so many children being diagnosed as ADHD and then being prescribed powerful medications? Is it perhaps due to the the medical profession being highly compensated by big pharma? Hopefully, your stance isn't dominated by you having having large investments in big pharma, and these attempts to make Americans healthy are adversely impacting those investments.

What are causing turbo-charged cancers? What are causing the white clots that undertakers are claiming they now see, which they had never seen previously?

You have it backwards. The Federal Government is already controlling healthcare

Until the 50's and 60's, America had the best healthcare system in the world: the private and voluntary cooperation DIRECTLY between the doctor and the patient. No gov't interference. Freedom in action.

Thanks in part to a giant shove from Enemy Obama, the federal government is now unconstitutionally controlling healthcare. Since when did unconstitutional gov't acts and agencies inherit eternal life?

The Supreme Law of the Land is still the Constitution. YOU have it backwards.

Would you just accept that you, your wife or your child developed a fatal condition or death from the food consumed?

You think some distant bureaucrat cares a whit about your health? At all? The giant HHS bureaucracy is concerned about ONE THING: its own perpetuation, growth, power, and taking in as much income a it can - at YOUR expense. The last thing those distant bureaucrats are thinking about is your health.

As far as their power over you, once they start mandatory health procedures there is no stopping them. They have their agenda and self interest, and you have your agenda and self interest. Which self interest do you think is closer to your actual needs and what you want for your life? That's the better question.

The Supreme Law of the Land is still the Constitution. YOU have it backwards.

Are you living in a protective cocoon?

Yes, the Constitution is the Law of the Land, as far as you & I are concerned. However, the reality is that, it's only true when the government is operated within the constraints of the Constitution. Sadly we have had many instances when 1 or more of the 3 Branches of the government have not operated thusly. Right now the Judicial Branch of the government is not operating according to the constitution.

At various times the various branches have tried & successfully changed the Constitution by means that are not using the amendment process. Instead, the constitution is changed by executive, legislative or judicial process.

When that happens then the judicial branch is tasked with determining if it was changed according to the constitution. That decision can only be overruled by the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court has ruled, only another Supreme Court can change that previous Supreme Court ruling, because it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will ever overturn its previous ruling. When the change is made by the legislature & signed into law by the executive branch, again the Supreme Court is tasked to determine the validity of the law only if it is presented a challenge to that change that may have occurred many decades earlier.

What I am trying to convey here, is that you can't just read the Constitution & the Amendments as originally written, anymore, because of the other methods that have become accepted as being Constitutional. So, unless you read all of the ruling and understand which rulings still are recognized, or perhaps been added to previous rulings or legislation because these too are considered to be part of the the existing constitution which is the Law of the Land.

Unfortunately, all of these changes muddy up the waters significantly. Which is why you fail to see that the government has been in control of the healthcare for many decades now, and in recent times have even tried to seize more control, and has even attempted to turn some of the Connotational powers over to entities that are not a part of this government. What am I talking about, you may ask?

There is currently an attempt to turn over all healthcare issues to the U.N and their agency offshoots like the WHO (World Health Organization) to determine such decisions as calling a pandemic event in progress and the rules that must be followed without dissent. They are trying to control the ownership of weapons such as our right to own and bear arms & munitions. Which so far we have been able to stop, but the Democrats, and some RINOs, still try to subvert this nation's sovereignty.

I am not your enemy my friend, I am trying to warn you that subversive tactics are being done to destroy this nation & take away the freedoms & rights we enjoy, without firing a shot by enemies from within, as well as, the external enemies.

You are buying the BS being pushed by those enemies from within & lying about what RFK Jr. is doing. He is not trying to destroy healthcare, healthcare is being destroyed by these enemies, he is trying to restore healthcare to what it once was, and away from what it has become.

So, no it's you have, as to what intent RFK Jr. has, is what is backwards.

He's working , just as Trump is, to return this nation back to a working state, while RFK Jr. is doing the same for the nation's healthcare system.

the Constitution is the Law of the Land, is only true when the government is operated within the constraints of the Constitution

So when the feds violate the Constitution then the Constitution is no longer the law of the Land? Boy the Left loves that argument.

However laws that are broken remain the law, right? If you break the law, do the cops or judges say, well, the law was broken so it's no long a valid law? So you agree instead with the bloodless coup that has taken place over the last 125 years.

Freedom is hardly won and easily lost and I refuse to give up my God-given, constitutionally-protected life, liberty, and free pursuits without a fight.

Whether you recognize or like it, we are in a fight for faith and freedom. The odds are against us as the odds were against the rag-tag colonists against England, the mightiest power on earth. But our Founders believed in the Divine Providence of God Almighty who gave the colonists the winning edge and I believe will do so here. Hope you'll join us.

So when the feds violate the Constitution then the Constitution is no longer the law of the Land? Boy the Left loves that argument.

Quit being obtuse. I already explicitly agreed with you that the Constitution is the Law of the Land, but the reality is that the Law of the Land has been ignored throughout its long existence. In far too many cases the Constituting has been changed by these extra-constitutional methods, that have in the process made understanding what the constitution actually now says has made it a very complex analysis to determine what is actually in the constitution.

I'm not making the case that these changes are legitimate, I am saying that we do not know exactly what is in the constitution at this point, because reading just the Constitution & its Amendments in is no way what the constitution says. Doing that only tells us what the Founding Fathers had created, but not what has morphed over the centuries

However laws that are broken remain the law, right?

Unfortunately if it is not challenged, it may indeed be seen as the law. A good example is:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. Wong Kim Ark was the first Supreme Court case to decide on the status of children born in the United States to alien parents. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

No one challenged the ruling, and in the 1990s, Democrats began using this ruling as the basis that anyone born on American soil including the offspring of illegals are American citizens by virtue of their being born on American soil. Again, no one challenged this until DJT came along in his 2nd term.

Do you agree with the ruling? Do you think the 14th amendment was making the case that anyone born on American soil is an automatic citizen? Is that citizen now too be considered as a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible eligible to become president or vice president?

My whole point it that you are being lied to with regards to RFK Jr. as to what his intentions are. That the government has been in control of the healthcare system for many decades, regardless as to whether you believe that or not, or even if we the people want that to be the case. RFK Jr. does not want that, nor does he want ingredients in our food supply. Apparently, you do not care and you see his endeavors of depriving you of something? That belief is where you have it backwards. He is trying to unwind much of the government interference in the healthcare industry as it currently stands, not add to that interference. Nor is he trying to exchange that interference to interfere as he sees fit.

My father was a grants administrator at NIH for decades, and I listened to his complaints of the government's involvement in the healthcare industry through the Medicare & Medicaid programs, but that started with the Medicaid program introduction. The goal was strictly to enlarge the Leviathan and providing it more power as well.

Instead, you are making wild allegations like the following that have no basis for even being brought up, and trying to paint me as being someone that is total BS.

Of course I recognize it, and I am filly onboard and have been for years now. But what I am trying to convey to you is that your belief regarding the involvement of RFK Jr. in the medical rights fight is misplaced. He's on our side also, who is trying to make America's future , our children, healthy again.

So, what is it that brings you so much consternation with regards to what RFK Jr. is trying to do?

the reality is that the Law of the Land has been ignored throughout its long existence

Actually, the Constitution was taken seriously until around 1900. America in the 1800's is documented as one of the freest periods in all of man's sad and oppressive history, with gov't spending hovering around 5%-7% GDP.

we do not know exactly what is in the constitution at this point

Well Judge Robert Bork considered the greatest constitutional scholar of his time (died a sort time ago) would disagree with you. The way to correctly interpret and apply the Constitution is as written and originally understood and intended. That's actually how any law should be interpreted and applied.

Do you agree with the ruling (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))?

Well, again, the Constitution as written and originally understood an intended trumps the Supreme Court if their decision is unconstitutional. However, I have no problem with Ark, only the Left's twisted interpretation and use of it. Here's my take on Ark...

Summary on natural born citizen (NBC):

NBC is a legal issue. The U.S. Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that someone who is born on U.S. soil is an NBC if at the time of his birth, his parents were in the U.S. legally but not U.S. citizens. Therefore, according to the mandatory legal authority of sound constitutionally-based SC ruling and precedent, offspring of illegals are not NBC's.

Detailed argument

Since around 1900, (SC) rulings have become less and less valid because SC has gradually moved away from basing their decisions on the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. But their ruling on NBC appear to be based on sound application of the Constitution.

In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 1898 [the Court found that] [W]hen the Constitution was adopted, the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.

It appears the Court of Appeals in Elg (1939) agrees with Ark (1898) decison.

(Both Marie Elizabeth Elg and Wong Kim Ark were born on U.S. soil to parents who were here legally but not U.S. citizens. )

Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended. What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered an NBC was. The Supreme Court decisions based on the good-faith and sound finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC. And in keeping with this the offspring of illegals should NOT be considered NBC's.

Some argue that the term "NBC" is not specifically used in Ark or Elg, but these cases revolve around citizenship based on birth on U.S. soil, which is exactly what NBC is. An NBC is a citizen automatically because he was born on U.S. soil. He is “naturally” and automatically a citizen needing no further processing to become a U.S. citizen. He becomes a citizen under “natural” (birth) circumstances, exactly as Elg, Ark, but not the offspring of illegals.

Do you think the 14th amendment was making the case that anyone born on American soil is an automatic citizen?

I think the 14A was purposely poorly and ambiguously written. However, what matters in law isn't what the writer intended but what the RATIFIERS intended which leads to a much narrower conclusion from what the Lying Gov't-Loving Left concludes. In fact, there is NO evidence AT ALL that the ratifiers of the 14A intended anything more than 14A as a Civil War Reconstruction Amendment to make former slaves full citizens.

RFK Jr.

Frankly, I don't care about RFK Jr. unless or until he calls for the dismantling of the monstrous HHS and gov't healthcare. So far, he's just trying to make the poison taste better. I'm not assigning bad faith to RFK Jr., just that his mindset is in the wrong place IMO just as many others' are. We don't need unconstitutional gov't modified to make it palatable.

In order to recover America's Free Constitutional Republic, we need unconstitutional gov't destroyed

Most likely a true statement. But I find perfection is hard prove, and the nature of man is likely to have been imperfect to the point that imperfections may have been overlooked, if it was a minor infraction. Even a major infraction may be overlooked under certain circumstances as well.

See, I disagree wit that, because some one holding a green card is in the country, is not a citizen. Therefore, he may be a citizen but not an NBC. Because his parents are not citizens at the time of their birth. Besides that representatives form other nations

A natural born citizen was born to two parents who were citizens at the time of birth. When the constitution was created it was the father who had to be the citizen.

That is what I was taught from very early in my schooling.

Long after leaving school, it was stated that at least one parent had to be a citizen at the time of birth and that she had to have been in this country for at least 10 years continuously before the birth, or some such extra requirement.

Those who were born before the U.S. was created, but were born of this land on this land prior to its creation were indeed deemed as NBC.

Furthermore, what you presented makes no mention of people who are representatives of a foreign country who are here, are here legally but their offspring born here are no afforded automatic U.S. citizens. Tourists & students here on visas who giver birth are not afforded automatic citizenship. Lastly you didn't provide the date of the SC ruling in the paragraph that I used above. It looks like an AI answer from my experience with AI.

In order to recover America's Free Constitutional Republic, we need unconstitutional gov't destroyed.

Do we go back to the original document & the amendments that were passed & ratified per the constitution method? Who makes those decisions as to what is constitutional or unconstitutional if the first option is rejected? Who determines what the Founding Fathers meant?

Meaning have changed over the years, so what exactly was meant by NBC according to the founders. It was obviously a special designation, but what exactly was that designation?

So what motivates you to accept the SC ruling when it comes to those born to people who are here legally, but are not citizens that makes their children automatically citizens of the U.S. when we can't be sure what NBC even means?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.