More about the FALSE legal assumptions of the mandavaxxers...Only in a totalitarian society do their weak arguments apply.

Those pushing for mandatory vaccination (currently for children to attend school, but surely eventually for anyone to go anywhere) sound just like the "climate change" purveyors when they talk about the supposed justification for their amazing hubris as "settled."..."settled law" in the case of mandatory vaccination, and "settled science" in the case of supposed anthropomorphic climate change.

The truth is that neither case is anywhere near "settled," no matter what the mainstream profiteers, mandatory taxers, and mandatory vaxxers and their bought-and-paid-for allies in the mainstream media may say.

Here is a helpful link from one of the nations foremost parental rights groups on this situation:

https://parentalrights.org/vaccines-case-law-not-settled/

Here is the key excerpt:

"In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that “[t]he liberty interest…of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), at 65. The Court cites a long list of cases covering a wide range of parental decision-making, dating back to 1923’s Meyer v. Nebraska."

The fact is that the debate over the state's "right" to force parents to accede to mandatory vaccination of their children is far more narrowly EVEN CLAIMED by the courts than the mandavaxxers would have you believe. The key case from an era at the height of the scare over then-otherwise-incurable small pox (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905) was clearly surrounded with language and intentions regarding "highly contagious, deadly and incurable" public threats.

Clearly, the mandavaxxers want to use that 115-year-old decision to apply it to every vaccine they need to push in order to bolster their profits-- which were recently devastated by the public awareness of the dangers of the opioids that these same people also claimed were "safe and effective" (and their strict proscription from public use in most instances.)

Nothing about the current push to mandate a whole range of vaccines for diseases (or conditions) that ARE otherwise curable, not necessarily as contagious to the degree they are a truly public threat, or deadly in any but the most rare instances meets the legal justifications in Jacobson. In fact, the TRUTH is that the vaccines that are being pushed the hardest--like MMR--are the opposite of all those factors, and actually can INCREASE communicability and the overall dangers.

The rest of the article is well worth a read so that you can equip yourself with the knowledge needed to counteract Big Pharma industry propaganda, and to defend parental rights against the uniformed.

No, injecting everyone with dangerous vaccines like HPV and MMR is NOT the proper decision for society, and NO, the "science" behind them is not settled, and neither is the law.

Asserting and protecting parental rights against a burgeoning technocracy is imperative for human freedom and for maintenance of healthy and effective families...families which form the backbone of all decent non-totalitarian civilizations.