I was going to put something short and concise up here. I can't right now. Writing down everything is keeping track of what is being learned. So, for those who are interested, read on. I, actually, would hope many take the time to. The laws under which we live...hmmm. We should be aware of the rule making bureaucracies; they have been allowed to create rules with the power of law. What their agenda is should be paid attention to. As well as the handling of their responsibilities.
A response that a supporter of Vaccine Choice received from Senator Libby Mitchell, candidate for governor, was forwarded to me. Senator Mitchell changed her perspective. Her first response was that our laws give us adequate protection so therefore there is no need for Rep. Thomas' bill, To Prohibit Mandatory Vaccinations, pointing to our Statutes that "mandate" vaccinations like for Public School with the "opt outs". If you can opt out, than it certainly is not mandated. The words in that Statute need to be changed to 'strongly advised and voluntary'. That issue is attached to Full Disclosure and Public School Enrollment Forms. Which, really is just a branch off here.
The underlined areas are Senator Mitchell. Her letter in full form is below this section. The e-mail Mitchell is responding to quoted directly from Maine's Health Emergency Statute. http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/Statutes/22/title22sec820.html I have a difficult time considering that a future possible President of our State thinks it is ok to have a law on the books that allows you to be taken into custody without a court order and held there for 48 hours before judicial review and while you're there treatment can be prescribed without your consent. Nice.
Mitchell: This law has been on the books in Maine for well over 50 years. In 2002, the legislature updated the law to address current issues like antibiotic resistant TB, anthrax and other very real public health threats. The legislature spent a long time on this bill, looking at all the issues you and others raise here. The Attorney General's office, Maine Center for Disease Control, Maine Civil Liberties Union and many others worked diligently to come up with the language that protects both the public health and people's civil rights.
NOTE: I had done some searching for the background on the changes in 2002 and found this article which is talking about a bio-terrorism prevention bill, LD 2164. http://www.portlandphoenix.com/archive/features/02/05/31/feat_medical.html An Act to Provide Government with the Necessary Authority to Respond to a Public Health Emergency Caused by an Act of Bioterrorism can be found here: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/search_ps.asp
When I look up the bio terrorism bill in this article LD 2164, I am able to look at the roll call http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/rollcalls.asp?ID=280006345 and summary however, it would not produce the text of the bill. So, I refined my search and found that yes, indeed, this article is referring to what I have been looking at, Maine's Health Emergency Statute. http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/Statutes/22/title22sec820.html Apparently Senator Mitchell does have some background information about the 2002 Bio-terrorism Prevention Bill that was adapted as additions to our Health Emergency Statute. She changed her view from not acknowledging this law to not only acknowledging it but stating that the authority it grants is needed. Senator Marrache and Senator Mitchell both are now in agreement that they believe the authority granted in the Statute to inject someone, to prescribe treatment of someone against their will is needed. The article above from 2002 actually describes the process as being rushed with very little time for public review. The article also refers to a 'sunset clause' but I have not been able to actually locate that. If there is a sunset clause where is that defined? How do I locate the re-enactment of this law? AND the article refers to the Bio-Bill as a skeleton that the DHS was given authority to fill in the blanks, circumventing the legislative process. So, where are the blanks filled in by DHS? Which parts are laws that I live under that my reps did not vote directly on?
Mitchell continues: "The law provides for extensive judicial review before any action can be taken." When the law states that "the director" can take into custody without a court order, there is no judicial review. The law states that not only can they take you into custody without a court order but that they can keep you in custody for up to 48 hours before any judicial review is required. So, what is Senator Mitchell referring to when she states 'extensive judicial review before any action is taken'? See Section 2, http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/Statutes/22/title22sec820.html
"The Governor, nor the legislature can just "on a whim" declare an emergency that invokes the provisions in this law." How exactly and precisely is this law triggered and applied? As a citizen of the State of Maine, it should be absolutely clear what laws I am living under and what precisely I can expect to happen if this statute is triggered and precisely where and how it is defined; the circumstances, events etc,,, that would trigger the statute to go into effect.
More from Mitchell: "Since 2002, the law has been used once with a person who had resistant TB, and refused not only treatment, but to remain isolated. That case was appropriately deemed by the process set up in the law to fall into the narrow band of a real public health threat."
This is comparing apples and oranges. This TB case could be compared to someone who has been diagnosed with AIDS and has unprotected sex. The State would absolutely have the responsibility to curtail a confirmed case to factually prevent the harm to others. However, vaccines are pharmaceutical prophylactics. This would mean that a person suspected of "a crime" (being contagious) could be taken into custody without a court order, and held for up to 48 hours before any judicial review because they were merely suspected.
Follow me here: The CDC told the States to stop counting H1N1 cases; they stopped testing for H1N1 in July. They then told the States to treat every cold and flu like case as if it was H1N1. So, there is no testing and therefore no accurate accounting of how severe or widespread this pandemic may be. Nor is there any way to verify that the pandemic has subsided. If every cough & cold could be H1N1 than every cough & cold could be, without oversight, evaluated as substantial evidence that warrants a person being taken into custody and prescribed care, against their wishes. If everything is being categorized as H1N1, and without testing and counting confirmed cases, we can be in a State of Emergency for quite a while.
Beneath the CDC's webpage that shows current numbers, a map and a graph are some words: **Laboratory confirmation includes any positive influenza test (rapid influenza tests, RT-PCR, DFA, IFA, or... culture), whether or not typing was done." What do they mean, 'whether or not typing was done?' http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/updates/us/
If the State of Maine is not testing for H1N1 than how do we know if that person had already caught H1N1 and developed immunities or is coughing or just has a bad cold? If they already developed immunity than they would be receiving an unnecessary vaccine with all the risks that come with it, and against their wishes. Unnecessary pharmaceuticals injected into your bloodstream is a big deal. It really is.
A law that mandates prophylactics is an immoral and tyrannical law. A law that allows for detention without a court order is wide open for abuse as Senator Mitchell knowingly acknowledges below in the remaining e-mail response received from her. I am not guilty of a crime if I wipe my nose or cough. Or if I have left my house. If they are counting all "might look like" colds as H1N1, then this could lead to being suspected of being contagious without even testing just because you came back from the store, well, if we're truly dealing with an epidemic.
Furthermore, when you are in the hospital and offered care, you have the right to refuse that care. This Statute says you do not. Gov. Baldacci's Proclamation of Civil Emergency Due to An Infectious Disease removed liability from the health care practitioners administering prescribed care. Normal conditions require doctors to receive informed consent to care from their patients and this requirement has now been removed. Andrew Maclean, a rep from the Maine Medical Association who participated in the 2002 discussions surrounding this law, expressed specifically those concerns, quoted in the article I referenced above. His concerns have now been remedied by Baldacci's Proclamation on Sept. 1st.
If we were testing and people had confirmed cases of H1N1 and the proof of that was evident in actual test results than we have reason to enforce a self-quarantine as our pandemic plan suggests and if a person who has a confirmed case refuses to self-quarantine than the State would have the responsibility to isolate in order to actually protect the spread of confirmed cases of H1N1 or in the future of any other infectious disease. It would even be justifiable that the person who tested positive stay at the facility they were tested at. TO TAKE INTO CUSTODY, with no proof, TO PRESCRIBE CARE, without consent is immoral, unethical and absolutely wrong.
Senator Mitchell continues: "No one in State Government takes this law lightly, and we are all very aware and vigilant on the potential for abuse that might occur if the safeguards in the law are overlooked." To be ok with this would mean that I have placed my health, my body, my life and my children's into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians.
"Nevertheless there may be times, very narrowly defined, that do qualify as an extreme public health emergency that action needs to be taken to both protect the general public's health from the spread of these very infectious diseases, and to make sure the person or persons affected by this law get appropriate and timely treatment for their own health. WHERE are they 'very narrowly defined'? Where are they defined at all? Will someone produce the proof of this defining, because I cannot seem to locate ANY parameters whatsoever? Again, this law is not defined to exclude all others and only pertain to confirmed cases. The Statute says "suspected of being contagious ...at risk of contracting". And this 'suspicion of being contagious or at risk of contracting' itself grants authority to take into custody without a court order and prescribe care. One does not even have to produce reasonable evidence of the suspicion because it states "without a court order".
Prophylactics are not to be mandated.
My goodness, the more I find the more clear it is the need to protect people's rights to decide. Our US history of mandating prophylactics is not pretty. It has happened before in the eugenics programs that Webster describes well, here http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/forcedsterilization.html Virginia still had eugenics laws on their books as recent as 1970.
Mandating prophylactics is happening presently across our country.
For the "general welfare" in prevention of viral cervical cancer, States are in the process of passing legislation mandating Gardisil for the school girls,(http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/HPVVaccineStateLegislation/tabid/14381/Default.aspx) regardless of the adverse effects. http://www.judicialwatch.org/gardasil It's all for the good of the health of the general public. This is being justified because Human Pappiloma is a VIRUS. It is contagious.
So is H1N1. What is next year's threat going to be? The CDC is pushing for federally mandated vaccines by next year.
On September 29th, Thomas R. Frieden, head of CDC appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to testify on H1N1 and in response to a question from Congressman Darell Issa, said that the CDC would like to create federal mandates forcing vaccination by next year. (another rule-making buracracy that is allowed to circumvent the legislative process)
http://groc.edgeboss.net/wmedia/groc/transfer/09.29.09.fc.flu.preparedness.wvx
Some lines should never be crossed. This is one of them.
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act or PREP Act provides tort liability immunity (except for willful misconduct) to individuals and organizations involved in the development, manufacture, distribution, administration and use of countermeasures against pandemics, epidemics and diseases and health threats caused by chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents of terrorism. On June 15, 2009, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius extended the PREP Act declaration for pandemic vaccines to H1N1 vaccines, and amended the declaration on (date) to add provisions that can help H1N1vaccination campaigns. I didn't know that H1N1 was considered to be caused by an act of terrorism, unless I am reading it wrong. Let me know if you think I am reading this wrong, ok?
This link will take you to the PREP Act. http://www.hhs.gov/disasters/discussion/planners/prepact/prepact-h1n1.html
The inserts for the Novel H1N1 vaccines can be found here: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/QuestionsaboutVaccines/ucm186102.htm
They are pdf downloads. The Flumist insert actually includes data that points to live virus found in nasal secretions up to 21 days. When they used this mist did they keep people isolated until their nasal secretions showed no live virus? If not, why not? Under adverse reactions the full data descriptions include the phrase "not established". Are these people incompetent? What's the matter with them??
So, why should a bill To Prohibit Mandatory Vaccinations be important enough to include in this session as one of the emergency bills allowed through?
Well, the Council allowed a bill forward to Regulate the Transportation of Firewood.
Why is Vaccine Choice important enough?
Our Governor signed a Proclamation of Civil Emergency Due to an Infectious Disease. Our President just declared a National Emergency Due to H1N1. Pennsylvania just declared a State of Emergency due to H1N1. NY mandated vaccines and withdrew due to the protests and lawsuit. NJ mandated vaccines and people took to the streets there, too. Massachusetts' Senate already passed a bill that will basically suspend their constitutional rights. Georgia and Florida are experiencing some waves due to the threats of mandatory vaccinations as well. The CDC recommends federally mandated vaccines by next year; the same CDC that has stopped testing and therefore counting confirmed H1N1 cases; the same CDC that stated that all flu-like symptoms should be considered H1N1.
Oh, and did I mention this same rule making bureaucracy, our CDC needed to receive a filing under the Freedom of Information Act because they refused to co-operate with CBS in their investigations and to date still have failed to provide the information requested.
This is from the CDC website: "*Reports can be based on syndromic, admission or discharge data, or a combination of data elements that could include laboratory-confirmed and influenza-like illness hospitalizations.
**Laboratory confirmation includes any positive influenza test (rapid influenza tests, RT-PCR, DFA, IFA, or... culture), whether or not typing was done."
In other words, when the CDC told the states to stop testing and to just treat all symptom like cases as if they are H1N1, the CDC themselves did the same thing. The numbers produced by the CDC that are categorized as H1N1 can be anything that may look like it.
WHY? http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/updates/us/. Scroll down under the map and then under the graph. And read.
WHY? I do not understand. Why would they do this?
I'm sorry, but I like to understand the world I live in.
These are the experts that our government, our STATE government will listen to when an extreme public health emergency is declared. The Health Emergency Statute allows for the taking into custody without a court order, to hold you for up to 48 hours without judicial review and prescribe care without your consent. Other states are dealing with this as we speak; NY, NJ, FL, GA, MA.
There are way too many questionable and variable areas. This "for the public health" is just not a good enough reason.
Do you realize that this campaign is just to get the Legislative Council Members who voted to exclude this bill, to change their vote on Thursday to allow this bill forward into the session. Doing that doesn't make it law. It just allows for consideration and for public review. It has to get out of committee before it ever can be voted on and then the Governor has to sign it, too.
It's just to have it included in this session!
My goodness!
From: Mitchell, SenLibby Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 10:15 AM Subject: re: LR 2136
This law has been on the books in Maine for well over 50 years. In 2002, the legislature updated the law to address current issues like antibiotic resistant TB, anthrax and other very real public health threats. The legislature spent a long time on this bill, looking at all the issues you and others raise here. The Attorney General's office, Maine Center for Disease Control, Maine Civil Liberties Union and many others worked diligently to come up with the language that protects both the public health and people's civil rights.
The law provides for extensive judicial review before any action can be taken. The Governor, nor the legislature can just "on a whim" declare an emergency that invokes the provisions in this law.
Since 2002, the law has been used once with a person who had resistant TB, and refused not only treatment, but to remain isolated. That case was appropriately deemed by the process set up in the law to fall into the narrow band of a real public health threat.
No one in State Government takes this law lightly, and we are all very aware and vigilant on the potential for abuse that might occur if the safeguards in the law are overlooked. Nevertheless there maybe times, very narrowly defined, that do qualify as an extreme public health emergency that action needs to be taken to both protect the general public's health from the spread of these very infectious diseases, and to make sure the person or persons affected by this law get appropriate and timely treatment for their own health.
Sincerely
Libby Mitchell
