Another Bombshell not being reported
A public-interest legal team has filed comments with the federal government objecting to a planned Centers for Disease Control rule-change that would allow the government to impose forced vaccinations on Americans under certain circumstances.
Erin Mersino, senior legal counsel for the Great Lakes Justice Center, explained: “This proposed rule is an abuse of power under the pretext of protecting public safety. The government increasingly acts without constitutional authority, thereby undermining good governance under the rule of law.”
The proposal from the CDC comes in the context of defining government’s power to act against individuals in the case of an outbreak of a communicable disease. But the Great Lakes Justice Center contends “the proposed rule reaches far beyond the CDC’s ability to quarantine a person with a serious disease, such as Ebola, by expanding the quarantine regulations to encompass all communicable diseases.”
The grant of permission for forcibly vaccinating individuals comes in its definitions, the GLJC said.
Under “Agreement,” the CDC states, “HHS/CDC is proposing a definition for ‘agreement’ which refers to an agreement entered into between the CDC and an individual expressing agreement between the parties that the individual will observe public health measures authorized under this part, as the CDC considers reasonably necessary to protect the public’s health, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.”
It continues, “CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to the exercise of any authority under this part.” (Emphasis added)
The GLJC is concerned that the “proposed rule requires forced medical treatment and vaccination of the detained individual without consent.”
“It forbids an individual from objecting to forced medical treatments and vaccinations for any reason – at the threat of criminal prosecution, prison and fines up to $100,000.00.”
The Rumor Has It” website Snopes posted a long article trying to debunk the claim, calling it “an alarmist rumor.”
But Snopes admitted a 1944 law already granted the government the power to “take necessary measures (including the apprehension of individuals) in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases.”
Snopes claimed the “same rumor focused heavily on ‘forced vaccines’ supposedly to be imposed upon any American abritrarily (sic) plucked off the street as part of a mandatory ‘agreement’ with such persons.”
“However, the NPRM defined those agreements in the context of a severe outbreak of communicable disease, as a measure upon which conditional release from quarantine or isolation might be predicated. No portion of the NPRM described vaccinating isolated or quarantined individuals without their consent (although it allowed for restricting the movement of such individuals during a public health emergency).”
In its definitions, the CDC allows for such “agreement” with individuals indicating consent to “quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.”
The definition continues “provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to the exercise of any authority.”
Snopes characterized the dispute as a claim that the CDC “was planning to apprehend and detain Americans to administer forced vaccinations,” which glosses over the fact that the rule purports to give the government the authority to do exactly that in some scenarios.
The Great Lakes Center said the proposed rule “tramples on our due process rights, civil liberties, violates religious freedom, invades personal privacy, and highjacks bodily autonomy.”