$1,000 a day fines for not submitting to vaccination in Massachusetts

Regarding the question earlier about whether Massachusetts passed a law mandating vaccination, John Harvey, a member of the Australian Vaccine Network group, has gone through the bill. His assessment below confirms that the bill indeed allows for forced vaccination, $1,000 per day fines and quarantines (which is frankly, better than not having quarantines as an option):

Here is the link to the bill: (http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf)

and to the article originally alerting people to this: (http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html)

Winnie

The following is from John:

Actually, I’m afraid it is true.  The Bill has already been passed by the lower house, and it seems deliberately drafted to allow for enforcement of orders of the widest possible scope.

The Bill, which amends various parts of Massachussets’s General Laws, is directly accessible from the Massachusetts Legislature’s site, at <http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf>.  The document is only 380 kB in size, and is worth downloading.  Despite being riddled with mistakes in spelling and punctuation, unless somebody has forged an entire government web site, this is the real thing.

Natural News (which gave the above link) quotes some of the Bill’s juiciest parts at <http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html>.  But it doesn’t mention some of the most concerning parts of the Bill.

Take, for instance, the Bill’s provision of the right of the commissioner to make an order -- any order.  Section 13 amends the older law by replacing its section 95.  The new section 95 provides that, once such an order is made, anybody refusing to comply with it may be fined up to USD 1000 per day of “violation” and imprisoned (lines 384 to 387).  But

[Section 95(a)]
“It shall not be a defense to aprosecution for this offense t hat the commissioner or the local public healt h authority erroneously determined that noncompliance would pose a serious danger to public healt h, if the commissioner or local public health authorit y was acting in good faith under color of official authority” (Iines 387 to 391).

In plain English, if the commissioner makes an order for, say, compulsory medical treatment upon the evidence of hearsay claims that without it a person poses a serious public risk, and that person refuses the treatment, he or she may be imprisoned and fined; and if it later is revealed that the person posed no risk, that the hearsay was marketing material manufactured for the purpose, and that the commissioner was derelict in his duty, the person fined will have no right of recompense: he or she will still be in the wrong.  “Violation” even of an order not based on a perception of serious risk is subject to USD1000/day fines (see lines 387 to 391).

But here is the most serious part I’ve yet seen in the document [section 95(b)]:

“Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public healt h authorit y within its jurisdict ion determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health the commissioner or local public health authorit y may exercise the following authority:

“(1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease and to prevent the spread of communicable or possibly communicable disease, provided that any vaccine to be administered must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual; and

“(2) to treat individuals exposed to or infected with disease, provided that treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual” (lines 399 to 408).

There is no suggestion that whether a vaccine is “reasonably likely to lead to serious harm” would be open to test by a court; it appears to be a matter for the commissioner’s judgement.  In any case, no court is likely ever to conclude that serious harm is “reasonably likely” in any medically usual individuals without overwhelming evidence to overturn the usual presumption.

The only small light the new section 95 will offer in all this destruction of fundamental human rights is this:

[section 95(b)]
“An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccinat ion or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertaint y whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authorit y operating wit hin its jurisdiction” (lines 409 to 414)

and this:

[section 95(c)]
“If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontaminat ion or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontaminat ion or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to an order of the superior court.   During the t ime necessary to obtain such court order, such individual may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal to submit to decontaminat ion or diagnosis procedures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertaint y whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health” (lines 425 to 431).

This pinprick of light is, of course, the right to refuse -- which refusal may be effectively punished without trial.

Following that is a provision that on the surface is more innocuous but actually serves an insidious purpose:

[Section 95]
“(d) (1) When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdict ion reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condit ion that poses a threat to the public health, in addition to their authority under sect ion 96 of chapter 111, the commissioner or the local public healt h authority may detain the person  for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condit ion and to obtain contact information, including but not limited to the persons residence and employment addresses, date of birth, and telephone numbers.

“(2) If a person detained under subsection (1) refuses to provide the information requested, the person may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to sect ion 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condit ion that poses a serious danger to public health” (lines 432 to 443).

In plain English, this provides that the commissioner, based solely upon his fallible beliefs and without need for a warrant or court order, may choose to arrest any person; subject him or her to brainwashing techniques; and keep him or her in indefinite detention without charge or trial on the basis that the person is unwilling or unable to supply a particular name or address and that the commissioner, with no evidence either way, is uncertain whether the person has been exposed to a serious disease -- which means anybody at all.

On the basis of its section 13 alone, it’s evident that this Bill is perhaps the most serious attack on U.S. constitutional rights and fundamental human rights in the United States that has been mounted in modern times.

The history of the Bill appearing below (from http://www.mass.gov/legis/186history/s02028.htm; with apologies for the peculiar U.S. date format) suggests, and Natural News states, that the Bill has passed in the Senate already (and evidently did so unanimously); and that its only potential barrier to becoming law lies in mobilising the House to strike it down.

One can be sure that if it passes into law, it will be used; and that it will be treated as a paradigm for further Bills in the U.S. and in other countries.

The conspiracy theorists, it seems, were right all along.

The defence of fundamental human rights is something that cannot be left to others.  If we do not act in their defence, they will be violated by all the largest vested interests and will come to be regarded as unnecessary, impractical anachronisms.  The time to defend those rights is not tomorrow.

Cheers --

John

History of An Act relative to pandemic and disaster preparation and response in the Commonwealth:

4/6/2009SReported from the committee on Joint Committee on Health Care Financing
4/6/2009SNew draft of S18 and H108
4/6/2009SBill reported favorably by committee and referred to the Senate Committee On Ethics and Rules
4/8/2009SDischarged to the Senate Committee On Ways and Means
4/27/2009SCommittee recommended ought to pass with an amendment
4/27/2009SRules suspended
4/27/2009SRead second, amended (as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means) and ordered to a third reading
4/28/2009SRead third (title changed)
4/28/2009SAmendment rejected
4/28/2009SAmendment adopted
4/28/2009SPassed to be engrossed - 36 YEAS to 0 NAYS (See Senate Roll Call, No. 32)
4/30/2009HRead; and referred to the House Committee On Ways and Means