Thursday, August 13, 2009
STATE & FEDERAL LAW REVIEWS REGARDING FORCED VACCINATIONS & QUARANTINES
by Larry Becraft, Constitutional Attorney
"no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person."~~~Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)
The following linked document provides this author’s compilation of state and federal laws and regulations regarding pandemics for easy public access and reference. . . .
Vaccination laws by Larry Becraft, Constitutional Attorney
Having spent a great deal of time compiling this information, adding links wherever I thought it might be helpful, providing some guidance and commentary when indicated, I observe references to the fed quarantine laws only apply to people crossing international and state borders.
Regarding quarantines, there is nothing printed in “black and white” law that even intimates doing something in the States; the Constitution does not grant these types of “police powers” to the Congress or the feds.
Likewise, any Presidential Executive Order regarding quarantine can only be based on these laws as an executive order could not be broader than the statutes forming the basis of his authority. Any Executive Order, in this respect, would only apply to people crossing borders and inside the insular possessions.
Quarantines have a long history going back hundreds of years. Governments have encountered and dealt with epidemics for centuries and the courts have upheld such police power.
In reference to the States, one must actually look at the laws for each State regarding vaccinations and quarantines. All states have quarantine laws regarding plants and animals; all require vaccines for school children (with certain exemptions); and most require emergency and hospital personnel to take vaccinations. Besides these, a smart legal student must focus on what his own state provides in reference to pandemics. Do state laws only provide that people be quarantined, or can mandated vaccinations be enforced? What are the rights of people targeted for this “emergency” treatment?
Some states have “due process” provisions so that people can legally challenge any detention. For example, Arizonans know about this:
What was troubling for me was learning about the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. This proposed act, adopted by as many as 39 states in one form or another, represents a new advancement in this field.
It does appear that after 9-11, the feds have been trying to get states to act in unison and rely upon CDC “proclamations” of emergencies to implement state quarantine laws.
If the swine-flu pandemic comes next fall, people need to know whether State officials are acting within their authority. They need to know about “due process” laws actually written into the quarantine laws. For example, suppose a fake crisis and resulting quarantine is declared in Phoenix. If Arizonans do not know about their quarantine “due process” rights, officials can run over them roughshod.
If large numbers of people know about these laws, and file suits in courts, we may be able to stop the insanity.
What about exemptions? Suppose your state allows school children to escape poisonous injections because of medical or religious reasons. Principles of equal protection would seem to me to permit others to use the same exemptions regarding a pandemic.
Further, I personally believe that any vaccines offered for swine-flu this fall may be very harmful. I also believe that those promoting these shots will not tell people about the risks. Withholding this information deprives people, medical patients, of “informed consent.” (See linked case of Fain v Smith.pdf.)
People need to actually read and study their own state laws and be prepared to use them. If people do not know about these laws, then officials will get away with doing whatever they want.
FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FINDING OF FACTS AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE RESOLUTION ADVANCED ON THIS WEBSITE CLICK: County of Hawaii Swine FLU Resolution of Religious Freedom.pdf.
According to Constitutional attorney Larry Becraft, the United States Government was founded upon Christianity.
This is evidenced in Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892): "and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.'
And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198. This court observed: 'it is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.'"
In addition there are various Presidential Proclamations and the frequent references to "Almighty God"
Thus, it is completely inconsistent with American jurisprudence to suspend religious freedom and legislate violation of religious convictions under any circumstance; especially without “just compensation.”
ADDITIONAL CASES INVOLVING BODY RIGHTS AND BODILY HARM PERTAINING TO MEDICAL EXAMS & VACCINATIONS
Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891): "no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person."
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 219, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (1914):
“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages. This is true except in cases of emergency where the patient is unconscious and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained.”
Rishworth v. Moss, 191 S.W. 843, 847 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1916):
“a physician is liable for operating upon a person unless he obtains the consent of such person, if competent to give consent, and, if not, of some one who, under the circumstances, would be legally authorized to give the consent; that in the case of a child of tender years consent must be obtained from the parent or guardian.”
Karp v. Cooley, 493 F.2d 408, 419 (5th Cir. 1974): “The root premise jurisprudentially is that ‘[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body’.”
Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, 498 F.2d 1264, 1294 (5th Cir. 1974): “the right of the individual to choose and control what risk he will take.”
Fain v. Smith, 479 So.2d 1150 (Ala. 1985): see copy I sent.
In re Duran, 2001 PA Super 52, 769 A.2d 497 (2001):
The right to refuse medical treatment is deeply rooted in our common law. This right to bodily integrity was recognized by the United States Supreme Court over a century ago when it proclaimed " no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person. . . . " Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251,
11 S.Ct. 1000, 1001, 35 L.Ed. 734, ___ (1891).
The right to control the integrity of one's body spawned the doctrine of informed consent. See Fiori, supra; Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914) (Cardozo, J.). This doctrine demands that if the patient is mentally and physically able to consult about his or her condition, the patient's informed consent is a prerequisite to treatment. Moure v. Raeuchle, 529 Pa. 394, 404, 604 A.2d 1003, 1008 (1992). See also Fiori, supra at 910; Nogowski v. Alemo-Hammad, 691 A.2d 950, 954 (Pa.Super. 1997), appeal denied, 550 Pa. 684, 704 A.2d 638 (1997).
A logical corollary to this doctrine is the patient's right, in general, to withdraw consent to treatment once begun. Courts have unanimously concluded that this right to self-determination does not cease upon the incapacitation of the individual.
While this right is fundamental to our concept of personal autonomy, it may be outweighed by any one of four state interests: 1) protection of third parties; 2) protection of the ethical integrity of the medical profession; 3) preservation of life; and 4) prevention of suicide.
Acuna v. Turkish, 192 N.J. 399, 414, 930 A.2d 416 (2007):
“The underlying basis for the doctrine of informed consent is a patient's right of self-determination, the right to intelligently decide whether to choose or decline a particular medical procedure. See Niemiera v. Schneider, 114 N.J. 550, 562, 555 A.2d 1112 (1989); Schloendorff v. Soc'y of the N.Y. Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (1914) (Cardozo, J.) ("Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent, commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.")
IN 2004, ATTORNEY BECRAFT WROTE:
"All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the . . . in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional. . . .
If this is the case, you might ask what is the Constitutional basis upon which the U.S. [Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)] has been created and currently operates [to direct state health departments through locally positioned federal agents]?”
IMPORTANT FOOTNOTE by Dr. Horowitz:
If you decide to file a lawsuit against your state health department or local health official(s), MAKE CERTAIN YOU DO NOT NAME ANY FEDERAL AGENTS as defendants, such as those commonly stationed within states’ health departments! This will save you from having to sue the federal government of the United States and lose the case instantly when the case is remanded to federal court wherein no remedy can be provided on behalf of the state defendants.