Pending congressional 'health' laws - Danger!

[Guest guest]

I do not know how you all feel about Icke, but this is something to

think about. Listed underneath the facist part are the articles that

justify the statements.

>>From Icke's site: IF these laws do pass....

>>

>> THE FASCIST " HEALTH " LAWS OF " FREE AMERICA " AND

>> IT IS TIME TO SAY NO:

>>

>>

>> 1 - You will have a mandatory vaccination or you

>> will be charged with a crime

>>

>> 2 - You will get a mandatory medical exam, or you

>> will be charged with a crime

>>

>> 3 - Doctors will give the exam or you will be

>> charged with a crime

>>

>> 4 - Your property can be seized if there is

>> 'REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE " that it may

>> pose a public health hazard... it can be burned or

>> destroyed and you will NOT have recourse or

>> compensation

>>

>> CULLING OF THE " LOWER STOCK " NEXT, HERR BUSH?

>>

>> From: " Jim Walters "

>>

>> Greetings, I usually don't send out anything as large as

>> what I've posted below, but this is very important stuff. I

>> received it from Dr. Mercola, M.D. I have heard rumors

>> about this for a month or so, but I never thought our

>> government would attempt anything this absurd.

>>

>> The recent terrorist activities have allowed our

>> politicians to attempt to enact legislation that would

>> never even be considered if people weren't already

>> panicked. This is Nazi Germany type legislation!!

>>

>> I urge you to sign the petition to W. Bush from

>> the AAPS (below) Then, pass this article on to

>> everyone you know, especially your state legislators.

>> This needs to be stopped ASAP!!

>>

>> Jim Walters

>>

>> Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.

>> http://www.aapsonline.org/alerts/petition.php

>> Sign Petition Against Model Legislation - 11/30/2001

>>

>> Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) Turns

>> Governors into Dictators

>>

>> DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

>>

>> Since this is a bit of an unusual type of article I thought

>> I would put my comment first. It appears some very

>> dangerous legislation is being prepared to be

>> implemented in the US. If this legislation passes, in

>> brief:

>>

>> 1 - You will have a mandatory vaccination or you will

>> be charged with a crime

>>

>> 2 - You will get a mandatory medical exam, or you will

>> be charged with a crime

>>

>> 3 - Doctors will give the exam or you will be charged

>> with a crime

>>

>> 4 - Your property can be seized if there is

>> 'REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE " that it may pose

>> a public health hazard... it can be burned or destroyed

>> and you will NOT have recourse or compensation.

>>

>>

>>

>> Action Step You can go to

>> http://www.aapsonline.org/http://www.aapsonline.org/

>> and click on the Emergency Dictatorial Powers act in

>> the left column. Then click on the December 13th

>> Action Alert which will provide information on how to

>> respond to your legislators on this issue.

>>

>> Additional Resource

>>

>>http://www.publichealthlaw.net/http://www.publichealthlaw.net/

>>

>> Summary

>>

>> This Act would:

>>

>> broaden government access to private medical

>> records; greatly weaken protections against the taking

>> of private property without compensation;

>>

>> criminalize refusal to be conscripted for public service

>> or to take medical treatment;

>>

>> potentially increase the risk of infection to many

>> individuals on the pretext of protecting the common

>> good;

>>

>> subjugate scientific analysis and deliberation to the

>> raw assertion of power;

>>

>> greatly expand the power of government to interfere

>> with commerce;

>>

>> and immunize state officials from sanctions against

>> gross abuses of power.

>>

>> Although certain extraordinary government

>> interventions might be warranted in a true emergency,

>> the government already has significant emergency

>> powers as well as the ability to convene a special

>> session of the legislature. It is highly inadvisable to

>> completely suspend our delicate system of checks and

>> balances upon the word of a Governor that an

>> emergency requires it.

>>

>> This Act, in effect, empowers the Governor to create a

>> police state by fiat, and for a sufficient length of time

>>to

>> destroy or muzzle his political opposition.

>>

>> The most telling sentence is: " The public health

>> authority shall have the power to enforce the

>> provisions of this Act through the imposition of fines

>> and penalties, the issuance of orders, and such other

>> remedies as are provided by law, but nothing in this

>> Section shall be construed to limit specific enforcement

>> powers enumerated in this Act. " Article VIII Section 802.

>>

>> It is unlikely that the vast expansion of governmental

>> powers would be restricted to combating a smallpox

>> outbreak. Once the precedent is established, it could

>> be expanded to other types of " emergencies. "

>>

>> This proposal violates the very principles that its

>> author, Lawrence O Gostin, has previously outlined,

>> while giving them lip service. His article recommends

>> that " public health authorities should bear the burden

>> of justification and, therefore, should demonstrate

>>

>> (1) a significant risk based on scientific evidence;

>>

>> (2) the intervention's effectiveness by showing a

>> reasonable fit between ends and means;

>>

>> (3) that economic costs are reasonable;

>>

>> (4) that human rights burdens are reasonable.... " (see

>> JAMA 2000;283:3118-3122).

>>

>> Background

>>

>> HHS Secretary Tommy is urging State

>> legislatures to adopt the Model State Emergency

>> Health Powers Act, prepared by the Center for Law

>> and the Public's Health at town and s

>> Hopkins Universities for the Centers for Disease

>> Control and Prevention.

>>

>> This Act grants unprecedented and unchecked powers

>> to the Governors of the 50 States. It can be

>> downloaded from

>> http://www.publichealthlaw.net/www.publichealthlaw.net.

>>

>> It is likely that HHS will tie passage of the Act to

>>billions

>> of dollars in federal funding: the usual method of

>> bribery/coercion to get States to pass legislation that

>> would otherwise never be considered.

>>

>> Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said:

>> " Tommy , whom I have considered a friend

>> for thirty years, should be ashamed of himself for

>> advocating this kind of Big Brother legislation. This is

>> not the Tommy we knew as a four-term

>> governor of Wisconsin. "

>>

>> HHS is using the 9/11 emergency as a pretext to rush

>> passage of an Act that has been in the works for more

>> than a year. Its main author, Lawrence O. Gostin, was

>> a member of Clinton's Task Force on Health Care

>> Reform, whose secret documents were exposed to

>> public view as a result of the AAPS lawsuit (AAPS et al

>> v. Hillary Rodham Clinton et al.)

>>

>> He was a member of Working Group 17, Bioethics, of

>> Cluster V, The Ethical Foundations of the New System,

>> and also a member of the informal group promoting

>> Single Payer. It is odd that Tommy should

>> be urging adoption of a plan originating with the most

>> extremist left wing of Clinton's Health Care Task Force.

>>

>> This legislation is a serious threat to our civil

>>liberties.

>> Indeed, " this law treats American citizens as if they

>> were the enemy, " stated s, chairman of

>> the Health Law Department at the Boston University

>> School of Public Health (San Francisco Chronicle,

>> 11/25/01). It must be exposed to the light of day in the

>> next month and a half.

>>

>> " If protests are sufficient and if conservative legislators

>> in state legislatures are properly alerted, perhaps there

>> is a chance to beat back this monster, " Weyrich said.

>>

>> Major Provisions

>>

>> Declaring an Emergency: Under this Act, any Governor

>> could appoint himself dictator by declaring a " public

>> health emergency. " He doesn't even have to consult

>> anyone.

>>

>> The Act requires that he " shall consult with the public

>> health authority, " but " nothing in the duty to consult ...

>> shall be construed to limit the Governor's authority to

>> act without such consultation when the situation calls

>> for prompt and timely action. "

>>

>> The legislature is prohibited from intervening for 60

>> days, after which it may terminate the state of

>> emergency only by a two-thirds vote of both chambers.

>> (Apparently, it does not have the authority to find that

>> the state of emergency never really existed.) Article III,

>> Section 305©. There is also the possibility that the

>> Governor could declare a new emergency as soon as

>> his powers were about to expire.

>>

>> What is a public health emergency? It is whatever the

>> Governor decides it should be. By the definition in the

>> Act, it could be an " occurrence " -or just an " imminent

>> threat " -of basically any cause that involves a biological

>> agent or biological toxin that poses a " substantial risk "

>> of a " significant number " of human fatalities or

>> disability. Article I, Section 104(g). Terrorism need not

>> be involved; any threat of an epidemic would suffice.

>>

>> The Act does not define " substantial risk. " Could it

>> mean a 1-in-1,000,000 chance? Risks of that

>> magnitude are already being invoked as a cause for

>> alarm, say of a measles outbreak with transmission

>> through an unvaccinated child, and a pretext for

>> removing exemptions to mandatory vaccines. The EPA

>> also uses such low (and purely hypothetical) risk as

>> the rationale for very costly regulations, so the

>> precedent is well-established.

>>

>> Is a " significant number " five (the number of deaths

>> from anthrax as of the date of this writing); 24 (the

>> number of deaths from chickenpox in 1998 and 1999

>> combined, 12 of them in persons under the age of 20,

>> used as a reason for mandatory childhood

>> vaccination); 100 cases of AIDS; or is it thousands of

>> deaths from smallpox, as most readers may assume-or

>> a single case?

>>

>> It could be any of these because the definition is at the

>> sole discretion of the Governor. The most plausible of

>> the dire threats generally cited is a smallpox outbreak.

>>

>> However, given the nature of the disease and

>> advanced medicine and sanitation, such an outbreak

>> could be contained without any of the extreme

>> measures in this Act, just as in the 1970s. (See, for

>> example, " Super Smallpox Saturdays? " by

>> Arnold Glueck, M.D., and J. Cihak, MD,

>> http://worldnetdaily.com/

>>

>> Because of the adverse side effects of the vaccine

>> (including death), more harm than good could be done

>> by an ill-advised, unnecessary mass vaccination

>> campaign.

>>

>> Patient Privacy Abolished: The Act would impose

>> significant new reporting requirements on physicians

>> and pharmacists, further diminishing the confidentiality

>> of medical records.

>>

>> Personal identifying information would have to be

>> reported in writing, without patient consent, in the

>> event of " an unusual increase " in prescriptions related

>> to fever, respiratory, or gastrointestinal complaints that

>> might represent an epidemic disease or bioterrorism, or

>> of any other illness or health condition that could

>> represent bioterrorism or epidemic or pandemic

>> disease. Such conditions are legion.

>>

>> Gostin concedes that his privacy provision is based on

>> his own model privacy act of 1999, which apparently

>> no state has adopted. Like the Clinton privacy

>> regulations that AAPS is now challenging in court,

>> Gostin's view of privacy is to allow unrestricted

>> disclosure to federal authorities. Section 506.

>>

>> Unlimited Power: How would the Governor handle the

>> emergency? By whatever means he chose. He is

>> under no obligation to use scientifically valid methods,

>> or to choose the least destructive method, or to

>> perform any kind of risk-benefit analysis.

>>

>> He may suspend any regulatory statute, or the rules of

>> any state agency, if they would " prevent, hinder, or

>> delay necessary action. " Article III, Section 303(a)(1).

>> Among the laws to be suspended would probably be

>> those permitting religious, medical, or philosophical

>> exemptions to mandatory vaccines.

>>

>> The Governor may not only utilize all the resources of

>> the State and its political subdivisions, but

>> commandeer any private facilities or resources

>> considered necessary, and " take immediate

>> possession thereof. Such materials and facilities

>> include, but are not limited to, communication devices,

>> carriers, real estate, fuels, food, clothing, and health

>> care facilities. "

>>

>> Article IV Section 402(a). He may " compel a health

>> care facility to provide services, " but it is not clear

>>what

>> means he may use to compel its personnel to work

>> (Article IV Section 402(), except that any physician or

>> other health care provider who refuses to perform

>> medical examination or testing as directed shall be

>> liable for a misdemeanor. Article V Section 502(.

>>

>> The Governor may destroy any material or property " of

>> which there is reasonable cause to believe that it may

>> endanger the public health. " Article IV Section 401(.

>> And while the State shall pay just compensation to the

>> owner of any facilities that are " lawfully taken " or

>> appropriated (Article IV Section 406), there is a huge

>> exception:

>>

>> " Compensation shall not be provided for facilities or

>> materials that are closed, evacuated, decontaminated,

>> or destroyed when there is reasonable cause to

>> believe that they may endanger the public health

>> pursuant to Section 401. " Article IV Section 406.

>>

>> The Governor is in charge of determining " reasonable

>> cause. " There is a strong incentive for him to declare

>> any losses to private owners to be noncompensable.

>>

>> " Reasonable cause " might mean " contaminated. " Is the

>> Senate Hart Office Building contaminated with

>> anthrax? Yes. Should it therefore be destroyed, or

>> subjected to fumigation with chemicals that would

>> destroy much of the equipment and furnishings? Most

>> think not.

>>

>> The problem is that given a sufficiently sensitive

>> testing method, everything is probably " contaminated "

>> with almost everything else. Moreover, every testing

>> method has some level of false positives.

>>

>> The late Conrad Chester of Oak Ridge National

>> Laboratory stated that any place that has ever

>> supported cattle has anthrax contamination (lecture

>> before Doctors for Disaster Preparedness annual

>> meeting, 1996). The same probably applies to any land

>> that has supported sheep or goats, or any land that

>> has had the wind deposit soil from such an area.

>>

>> In other words, anthrax spores are probably ubiquitous,

>> though at a concentration that very rarely causes any

>> harm. Such harm as was done may have been

>> misdiagnosed by physicians who were unfamiliar with

>> anthrax and not specifically looking for it.

>>

>> Under this law, nothing would stop the Governor from

>> ordering a citizen to turn over his house to be used as

>> an isolation facility, and later destroying the house on

>> the grounds that it is contaminated. This order, like any

>> other, could be enforced at gunpoint by any law

>> enforcement officer.

>>

>> In a time of public hysteria, fanned by press coverage

>> based on the " if it bleeds, it leads " policy, common

>> sense is likely to be an early casualty. It is even

>> possible that terrorists-or persons bent on radical

>> transformation of society and the American form of

>> government-could deliberately raise a false alarm and

>> influence a Governor to take action that would result in

>> more damage to freedom than the terrorists

>> themselves could ever accomplish.

>>

>> Or radical environmentalists (who haven't, to date,

>> generally had the label of terrorist applied to them)

>> could bring about the destruction of an activity that

>> they object to (such as logging, cattle ranching, or

>> modern farming). There are no checks and balances in

>> this Act to prevent such an occurrence, and no

>> meaningful accountability for the public officials who

>> carry out a basically misguided policy, however

>> destructive.

>>

>> Command and Control: The Act assumes that the best

>> method to use in an emergency is force and central

>> control. There is no evidence that force works better

>> than leadership, which can bring out the best in

>> citizens coming together to meet the crisis, just as

>> firefighters, police, medical professionals, hotel

>> owners, and other businessmen did in New York City.

>>

>> Totalitarianism is not only evil but has had uniformly

>> disastrous results.

>>

>> Although the world has 40 centuries of experience to

>> show that the effect of price controls on the economy is

>> comparable to that of an asteroid impact on the earth,

>> the Act empowers the Governor to ration, fix prices,

>> and otherwise control the allocation, sale, use, or

>> transportation of any item as deemed " reasonable and

>> necessary for emergency response. "

>>

>> This specifically includes firearms. Article IV Section

>> 402© and Section 405(. Moreover, the Governor

>> can simply seize such items. Article IV Section 402(a).

>>

>> The Act grants Governors the exclusive power to

>> control the expenditure of funds appropriated for

>> emergencies; the intent and priorities set by the

>> Legislature would be irrelevant.

>>

>> The Governor may delegate powers at his sole

>> discretion to unelected political appointees.

>>

>> Criminalizing Refusal of Medical Treatment: The Act

>> empowers the public health authority to decide upon

>> medical treatment or immunizations and to impose its

>> view on individuals, who are liable for a misdemeanor

>> should they refuse.

>>

>> Article V Section 504(. Although it might in some

>> circumstances be prudent and justified to quarantine a

>> person who refuses immunization during an outbreak,

>> it is tyrannical to criminalize the medical choice to

>> decline a treatment.

>>

>> An immunization or treatment might well cause serious

>> harm to certain individuals even if the public health

>> authority does not recognize that it is " reasonably

>> likely " to lead to " serious harm " -another two important

>> undefined terms. Article V Section 504(a)(4).

>>

>> The Act gives the public health authority the right to

>> isolate or quarantine a person on an ex parte court

>> order, with no hearing for at least 72 hours. If the

>> public health authority decides that an unvaccinated

>> person is a risk to others, even if uninfected, he could

>> be quarantined.

>>

>> Article V Section 503(e). It is quite possible that public

>> health authorities could force such a person from his

>> home to a place of quarantine, where he will be

>> exposed to infected persons. Such places shall be

>> maintained in a safe and hygienic manner " to the

>> extent possible, " and " all reasonable means shall be

>> taken to prevent the transmission of infection among

>> isolated or quarantined individuals. "

>>

>> Article V Section 503(a). The Act itself thus implies that

>> an uninfected person is at risk by being placed in such

>> a facility; it is quite likely that he could be at greater

>> risk than if he had the freedom to protect himself as he

>> saw fit. It is assumed that public health authorities will

>> be " reasonable " ; however, this assumption is

>> questionable.

>>

>> Even now, children not vaccinated against hepatitis B

>> are being excluded from school even though there is

>> NO risk that an uninfected child can transmit the

>> disease and a minuscule risk that he can acquire the

>> disease at school.

>>

>> Zero Accountability: If the State does more harm than

>> good through unfettered use of its draconian power, it

>> can rely on the state immunity clause:

>>

>> " Neither the State, its political subdivisions, nor, except

>> in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, the

>> Governor, the public health authority, or any other

>> State official referenced in this Act, is liable for the

>> death of or any injury to persons, or damage to

>> property, as a result of complying with or attempting to

>> comply with this Act or any rule or regulations

>> promulgated pursuant to this Act. "

>>

>> Article VIII Section 804.

>>

>> Note that the law would grant certain immunities even

>> for deaths improperly caused, and allows such

>> immunity even for advisors who made

>> recommendations based on conflicts of interest.

>>

>> An Alternate Proposal

>>

>> Although this Act should be rejected, there are certain

>> measures that State governments might want to

>> consider:

>>

>> A reevaluation of the procedures for effectively

>> quarantining persons who are a significant

>> demonstrable risk to others, while preserving due

>> process and substantive rights;

>>

>> Improving overall preparedness for attacks with

>> weapons of mass destruction:

>>

>> upgrading and expanding facilities for the prompt

>> detection and identification of infectious agents, toxins,

>> chemical weapons, and radioactivity;

>>

>> evaluating and augmenting State and local supplies of

>> vaccines, antibiotics, protective gear for

>> first-responders and medical personnel, isolation

>> facilities for treatment of casualties, shelters against

>> radiation, potassium iodide, other essential equipment

>> and supplies, and information on self-protection

>> available for rapid public distribution;

>>

>> Measures to protect private citizens, including

>> physicians, against civil liability resulting from efforts

>>to

>> aid others in an emergency (suggested in Article VIII

>> Section 804);

>>

>> Permitting the State to waive certain licensure

>> requirements for the duration of the emergency to

>> permit recruitment of additional personnel (Article V

>> Section 507(a)); and

>>

>> Suspending State, federal, or local regulations or

>> ordinances that interfere with prudent response to an

>> emergency while providing no scientifically proven

>> significant benefit, subject to ultimate review and

>> rescission or post-emergency resumption without

>> retroactive penalties, based on scientifically valid

>> methods.

>>

>> There are many EPA requirements, for example, that

>> are not based on good scientific evidence and could

>> be disastrous in a real emergency. At the time of the

>> World Trade Center fire, the EPA had to acknowledge

>> that asbestos controls were totally excessive, in order

>> to prevent a public panic about inhaling the white dust.

>> (Indeed the ban on the use of asbestos above the 64th

>> floor might have hastened if not caused the collapse of

>> the buildings-see Jon Dougherty,

>>

>> http://worldnetdaily.com/

>>

>> The ban on DDT (imposed despite the overwhelming

>> preponderance of scientific advice and evidence

>> opposed to this action) would severely inhibit the

>> containment of an outbreak of mosquito or other

>> insect-borne diseases.

>>

>> The ban on incinerators because of exaggerated

>> concerns about insignificant releases of dioxins would

>> prevent the safest and most expeditious method of

>> destroying dangerously contaminated materials.

>>

>> Conclusions

>>

>> States can and should improve their ability to respond

>> to disaster, including bioterrorism. However, having the

>> Governor play doctor and dictator is not the right

>> response. Citizens should distribute information about

>> the actual content of the Model Emergency Health

>> Powers Act to opinion leaders, newspaper editors,

>> columnists, the Chamber of Commerce, business

>> groups, medical society officials, legislators, and the

>> Bush Administration.

>>

>> Action Step

>>

>> You can go to http://www.aapsonline.org/ and click on

>> the Emergency Dictorial Powers act in the left column.

>> Then click on the December 13th Action Alert which

>> will provide information on how to respond to your

>> legislators on this issue.

>>

>> Additional Resource

>>

>> http://www.publichealthlaw.net/

>>

>

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.