Forced Swine Flu Vaccinations in Massachusetts

There is no way this will pass. It has to get past more than local government to become reality. There is imo, a 0% percent change of this becoming reality.

If it does, then I will admit there may be a much larger plan in the works. But I don't see this happening.

reply to post by fleabit

---

That's the scary thing, is that it HAS passed. It only requires an executive order (by the Governor) at this point giving the Governor the right to use this power.

I think what the deeper issue is what the State Supreme Court will rule the actions. I can't imagine the citizens of Massachusetts sitting idly while their State Government tries such tyranny on them! A lawsuit would be a realistic outcome the second a federal or state employee tries to forcibly inject this vaccine into a child.

God forbid the State Supreme Court stands behind it, there is no way the National Supreme Court would allow evil to go unpunished. There would be a federal injunction faster than you could say "Silly Swine Flu Vaccine."


-Sliadon

I see it as typical politics for my state. They're probably passing this for perceived political capital. And I didn't mean the bill was sensationalist, I meant the video was. No one gives a # about this in Massachusetts, it's a non issue. I really, really doubt this will be enforced for swine flu or anything else, we don't even have the resources to pay the troopers the overtime to make it happen.

If you knew anything at all about Massachusetts and it's politics you would see how absurd it is that fox news is painting this state as some kind of fascist police state.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Funshinez]

Are you joking, did you not look at the link, or is the truth too painful? Some people

I hope your confidence is not misplaced Funshinez, because if you are wrong... at least for your state anyways,

/gameover


I would still keep my eyes pealed and ears open though if I were you.


-Sliadon

I didn't know it has passed, I don't know how I missed/forgot that.
I need to sleep.

Well, considering I actually live in this state, and work for the state maybe my experience is more valid than conjecture in a youtube video?

reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder

---

One thing the sales of firearms have gone up 1500%.
They'll be alot of people that will resist.
Blood will flow.

reply to post by tompumped

---

Hopefully this can help you out some Tom,

www.wickedlocal.com...


Catch up on those ZZZ'z. God knows I need to start hitting the hay soon!


-Sliadon

Thanks for the link

I truly hope everyone on here saying they will not let this happen without a fight is speaking the truth. I can only hope there are many more.

I regret not taking survival classes or reading. At least I know how to hunt and fish if it comes to that, but i'm afraid I wont live to see that unless I run by myself. I don't know anyone that would go with me.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by tompumped]

With all due respect Funshinez, you stating that you work for the State of Massachusetts is an unverifiable source. I'm not saying that you don't, however, the information that myself and others have posted into this thread is legitimate information coming straight from "your states" .gov page as well as from News Agencies.

When I read a bill from a .gov page, I know that that bill is a legitimate one. When I then see that the bill passed and is waiting on Executive Orders, I see that as legitimate proof.

No offense, but your "show me proof" argument doesn't hold up.

We have.


-Sliadon

reply to post by tompumped

---

Remember man,

This is not game over yet. The beautiful thing about our America is that we have not lost complete freedom. Sure, many of us (myself included) have gotten caught up in doomsday V for Vendetta like mindsets with the sky falling, but we still have the judicial system to count on should the State of Massachusetts actually try to get away with something like this.

Myself? I'm hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. Now, that comes more easily said for someone like myself who resides much further away from Massachusetts, but even still I would not give up hope yet.

Keep your head up friend.


-Sliadon

reply to post by Spooky Fox Mulder

---

Thanks for the good and "Spooky" thread Fox.

Where better to launch forced vaccinations than in Massachusetts? The road has been paved.



Forced health care followed by forced vaccinations.

Another excerpt:



And so in Massachusetts you already can be fined for no insurance and one could imagine the threat of fines or worse for no vaccination. We've heard rumblings of a bracelet tracking system. Would a vaccination bracelet be needed in order to enter a store, buy food, gas, go to work, go to school, etc?

The entire Wall Street Journal article:

The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood.

Fox News has been scaring people about this virus more than anyone. Now, they complain that crazy legislation that resulted from this fearmongering is about to be passed.

Lets all just calm down.

The way these things go usually is they test vaccinations on government workers first. Which is mandatory for me, coming this November if I'm not mistaken.

My experience may be subjected to review, but from my experience, I remember very well being subject to 2 different "flu-mists" back in 06-07.
Now I might be mistaken, but as far as I remember I was receiving this being deployed, before my friends overseas at my home base.

So that being said, calm down and let us, your usual guinea pigs bite the bullet and watch what really happens. First hand.

Thank you TE, I will watch.



The entire article:

Vaccinations and Military Guinea Pigs

i cannot wait until they try sticking me with a needle. I will be sitting near my front door waiting with my two friends, there names are numbers .22 and .32! If they enforce martial law I have some plans set up. I think now is the time to start making serious plans on when the SHTF! Its going to happen in a couple of weeks!

I agree. I'm not going to sit idly by either, but alien brought up a wonderfully great point when he said



I said it already, but seriously one of the best responses I have heard on ATS in a while.


-Sliadon

Another thing to add to the mix is that, in regards to Health (be it your own or the wider health of society), there already exists - well, at least in my country of New Zealand anyway - processes/Acts that allow for the forced detainment and treatment of a country's citizens for their own good or for the good of that society.

An example of that would be the Mental Health Act and the associated Compulsory Treatment Orders that entails.
Essentially the Mental Health Act is the strong-arm of the Mental Health/Hospital system in my country...and its certainly not uncommon amongst most other countries also whereby if someone is deemed to be *unwell* and/or poses a significant threat (be it real or potential) of harm to self or others...then boom, people like me (Snr Psych Nurse/Duly Authorised Officer) can basically sign off some paperwork, give the Police a call and have you detained and transported to the nearest Psych Unit for further assessment/commital/treatment.


Here is where it starts to get dodgy.

The Mental Health Act is NOT intended to detain. It is NOT intended to forcibly remove another citizen from their fundamental rights. It is NOT intended to be a long term action - rather its principle intention is to assist at a time when perhaps 'assistance' is not wanted by the person...and really - despite the very real weighty power it allows - be as 'less intrusive upon the person' as possible for the shortest possible length of time.

That is the intention.

However - how it is actioned is variable, and variable upon the Clinicians actioning it.
For some of us we do only utilise the MHA in situations of very real and imminent danger, and then ONLY for the extent that danger can be mitigated in other forms less restrictive and invasive upon the person.
For other Clinicians however its welded like a sword. Its power, intention and wording within it is 'bent', sometimes outright broken, and it becomes a vehicle of extreme disempowerment of the person.

Someone under the MHA both does AND doesn't have a right to refuse treatment.
They do have a *right* to say "Heck no I don't give my permission for you to inject me with that IMI".
The reality however is that refusal is noted, and where deemed necessary the person can actually be restrained and the medication administered.

So really the only *true* choice that exists is around HOW the medication is administered - either willingly or unwilling, as when under the MHA the final choice doesn't rest with the person, it rests with the responsible Clinician.


...that said...and while I do acknowledge that Mental Health is somewhat different, the over-riding fundamental ideology of doing something perhaps unwanted by the person for their own good and/or for the good of others most certainly already exists.
Not only does it exist, but also seems to be reasonably welcomed by the wider community.
Perhaps thats somewhat based upon the perceptions and stigmatisation of people experiencing any form of unwellness/Mental Illness.
Often do I hear people say things like "Unwell people should be treated." or "They need to be in hospital" or "They pose too much of a risk to themselves and to others if they are allowed to wander around untreated" etc etc.
The wider public actually seem to support the idea of the MHA, support the idea of basically removing and remedying a perceived threat to society.

Its that type of thinking where I see the similarity - and the possible opening - with these types of Acts/Laws around physical health.
Thin edge of the wedge and all that...

The MHA could be seen as somewhat of a precedent already that could be transferred over to forced detention and treatment of a country's citizens.


So when I hear/read people say things like "That will never happen" or "Thats just wrong, how can that pass?" well...the processes are already there.
It already is in other sectors of health/society.
And at least in my country has been for the last 17 years (since its last revision anyway).



Peace.

Oh, I think it is in the US already as well.

If a person is deemed to be a danger to themselves, they can be committed for their safety.
A friend of mine used to drink quite a lot. He told me his doctor was ready and willing to forcibly help him if he continued to drink.
This was probably 20 years ago.