Then go THIS way...
Posted on 10/11/2021 4:01:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
Before you start throwing things, I’m not suggesting that people with religious concerns about the vaccines should ignore those concerns. They may be serious and valid, and for those people, should be pursued. I could even add one:
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
(1Co 6:19-20 NAS)
The idea that you might deliberately allow the injection of a harmful agent (toxic spike protein?) into your body would clearly contradict the Apostle Paul’s admonition. Hence, it would create a valid religious objection.
Unfortunately, multiple self-anointed authorities are declaring that they know your religious beliefs better than you do, or that they are simply not valid in the face of a civilization-devouring plague. Facts regarding their assertions carry no value, but their assertions against those facts are somehow supreme. They are impervious to the Supreme Court’s holding in US v Seeger (380 US 163, 1965) that the proper test is “whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningfully occupies a place in the life of its possessor.” (Other cases of importance are Thomas (1981) and Frazee (1989).)
As you can see, I am very sympathetic to the religious exception. Those who have read my writing or seen my videos also know that I refuse to back down in the face of COVID groupthink. But pursuing the religious exemption seems in most cases to be a losing battle. Fortunately, there is a more powerful potential weapon against the Foul Forces of Fauci. It’s called “Informed Consent.”
For our benefit, the FDA has published a lovely guidebook for our reference. It’s designed for research, but the general principles apply to medical care. And make no mistake, the Fauci Ouchy is medical care. It is a medical treatment given to a patient for the stated purpose of furthering health. Of particular interest, the persons pushing for the shots are not treating physicians for the persons on the sharp end of the needle. Often they are politicians masquerading as physicians, and loudly trumpet how “safe” and “effective” the injections are. But we must note that they do not administer a proper informed consent to the treatments. Under state laws, treating without consent in a non-emergency situation is a felony called “battery.” That’s right, it’s a felony. This is so important that we must know all the elements of true informed consent that are derived from the Nuremburg Principles.
“Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent "in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record." The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4.” (Emphasis added)
We can argue that the first element is satisfied when people understand that the vaccination is a shot. But that’s the only step that the CDC and other public agencies actually comply with. And they don’t just ignore the others. They vigorously sweep them under the rug.
Element 2 requires disclosure of the risks and benefits of the injection. In theory, the benefit is a high likelihood of immunity to COVID-19. We now know that this immunity is fleeting, so that at six months, a booster to an older version of the virus, not the variant in current cases, is somehow needed. That’s pretty much it. Data shows that it doesn’t materially improve your resistance to passing the bug on.
The risks of the vaccine are becoming very clear, with upwards of 200,000 people dead in the US from its effects. Many more are suffering from permanent injuries. All seem to be directly due to the vaccine-created spike protein’s toxic effects. But where is the disclosure by the authorities pushing the shots? They’re directly responsible for making the bad stuff publicly known. But all they do is blow sunshine up your … by saying that the vaccine is “very safe.” Then they get GooFaTwit to block anyone who says anything different. That’s not educating you about risks.
A “risk” must be disclosed if (1) it is so severe that a patient might decline treatment even if it’s very rare or (2) frequent enough that it might cause a patient to decline. I spent thirty-six years being sure that I made those things clear to patients before I proceeded with any anesthetic. But where is the disclosure of vaccine risks by the treating physicians in the political bodies, hospital administrations, or airline management? Oh, I forgot. They aren’t treating physicians. They are all managers, toeing the line because their finances depend on pacifying the Powers with the Purse in D.C.
So hundreds of nurses get fired from multiple hospitals. Dr. Chris Rake, an anesthesiologist at UCLA, is terminated and escorted out. Many more in multiple industries lose their jobs after check-writers demand that they undergo a medical procedure to which they cannot give informed consent because they are being coerced and have not been informed of its risks. Recall that the responsibility to inform falls on the person demanding the procedure, not the person on whom the procedure is performed. But that’s not enough. Beyond that, informed consent requires the ability of deny consent. “Get the shot or get fired” denies the ability to say “No.”
Criminally, this is mass battery, proximately perpetrated by employers, but incited by nefarious government actions. Civilly, this is a mass tort, perpetrated by the same actors. Criminal action would require a district attorney to pick up the case. This seems unlikely in the current political atmosphere. But an enterprising personal injury attorney might find a lovely set of deep pockets, ready for the harvest.
The religious exemption may be good for some, but informed consent offers the opportunity to hit the COVIDictators right where they hurt.
My company (large aerospace/defense company) is set to announce what is suspected to be corporate-wide compliance with Biden's (supposed) vax mandates.
42 years in the industry and 23 with this company, and now I need to figure out:
1) Do I put in for retirement, or
2) do I self-terminate, or
3) do I let them fire me?
So many choices...
/sarc
Then go THIS way...
I like the article. The author is correct, in that there are a lot of people who will attack him for the suggestion that people abandon the Religious Exemption approach, but I think the author may be on to something here.
It is very...well...Alinskyite, in that at makes them conform to their own laws (and most of these laws, while not a bad thing in and of themselves, were pushed by the Left or those with Leftist tendencies.
#1
They’ll be HAPPY to see you go, for you could foment unrest among the other workers.
The religious exemption is a powerful tool because case law in the U.S. has repeatedly -- and very consistently -- demonstrated that it is both broad and over-arching when it comes to other areas of law. Religious exemptions have been used to secure rights under the law that could never have been secured using other methods. This approach has established exemptions from all kinds of laws that would not apply to "non-religious" elements of the law -- like exempting the Amish from participating in our Social Security and Medicare systems, shielding various aboriginal tribes from prosecution under laws outlawing narcotics, and preventing states from enforcing compulsory education laws against many religious groups.
From the article:
“Under state laws, treating without consent in a non-emergency situation is a felony called “battery.””
Questions:
Which states have lifted the emergencies?
Which states have laws against treating without consent in a non-emergency situation?
Which states have laws allowing treatment without consent in an —emergency situation—?
The key is whether there’s an emergency and whether forced treatment is allowed in that situation.
I like the one-two punch of jumping back and forth between state law and federal “mandates” when it is convenient. That’s really cool! And companies are forcing this (within their states, I guess) even without any Federal law.
This sounds like a great way to run an Uyghur camp.
Let them fire you and wait for the wrongful termination class action lawsuit
Fact is we should not be forced into a corner where we have to use any exemption other than just the word “NO”.
I'll attack the strategy of his argument. I don't think his argument has a very strong connection with the religious exemption, if any.
Opposition to taking medical treatment against one's will can come from a variety of sources. And those who aim to do us physical violence against our will, will persist.
My point of view is that in law at least, the religious exemption is illusory. The entity that sets the standard is the entity doing the violence, not the objector. -- Off topic, this is also the case with "reasonable expectation of privacy." The law is not referring to public expectation.
But in practice, some employers are very generous in interpretation of the religious exemption, and so, IMO, it is actually a pretty strong tool in practice - until the government decides to step on your neck.
The argument that a vaccine against ones will is battery will meet the same legal system that religious exemption does. It does have one benefit - under religious exemption, the onus is on the objector to justify, on religious grounds, the exception. But in a "just say no" regime, the onus is on the jabber to justify his use of force to get you to do something you do not want to do.
Meanwhile, those who are opposed to taking the vaccine (I'm one of those) are going to take some lumps, and the legal system is part of the force aligned AGAINST our will.
#3 has the potential for a settlement down the road.
Does the “state of emergency” factor in to whether the treatment can be coerced?
I raised the question here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4002528/posts?page=7#7
Most if not all states have lifted the declared state of emergency. I know for sure that Maine has.
As far as treatment without consent being a felony, I doubt that as a general proposition. Maybe in some narrow situation but even there I doubt it. Battery 9sometimes called assault) in medical context is just about unheard of. failure to give the information part of informed consent is typically handled as a civil matter, malpractice claims against the doctor or institution.
Most states allow good samaritan treatment. If you are unconscious (like from an accident), you are going to get treatment without having given your consent.
Part of the rub here is what is considered “forced” or “compelled.” As it stands, the law sympathizes more with the strong side of the dispute. Giving you the choice of jab or job, pick one, the law has tended to said with the company doing the termination. In other words, jab or job is not a condition of “force” or “compulsion.”
It is worth working out in the courts, but utterly irrelevant to the mandates simply because it isn’t written in the mandate and that is all that companies will consider.
I imagine if enough people pull off the religious exemption it will be ended in a separate order or rule so that when that rule is struck down the original mandate still stands.
The rabidly insane drive to treat every last person with MRNA treatments will eventually be one of those events in history that people look back on and say, “What was wrong with those people?”
I don’t think this informed consent is related in any way to the religious exemption (as you accurately point out) but I think the religious exemption has been the default path of resistance by many, since it points at the company requiring the vaccination, not the medical personnel administering it.
I hadn’t thought of that approach, and since I work in healthcare, that approach is an interesting one.
A company can fudge on a religious exemption and get away with it...but a healthcare provider who is fudging on informed consent can more easily be skewered by the rules they normally MUST adhere to or face consequences.
Personally, I am of the opinion that resistance should be mounted in all and any ways that it can. This is an interesting alternative to the Religious exemption.
Bingo, Openurmind. (Tag line)
One of my kids is an aerospace engineer.
They only give options for pregnancy, health and religious exemptions.
Lack of the protection of informed consent isn’t one of the options and I’m sure it would be immediately denied.
Unmutual! Disharmonious! Begin Total Social Conversion!
(apropos as we’re living through “Change of Mind”...)
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.