PIERRE, South Dakota (PNN) - June 25, 2020 - Who owns your body?
A growing number of legislators in South Dakota believe you do.
They have introduced a bill to not only end vaccine mandates in the state, but all future medical mandates that may be introduced in generations to come.
One hundred and fifteen years ago this month, the Fascist Police States of Amerika Supreme Court made a decision that because there was a deadly smallpox epidemic, the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, was allowed to charge a pastor five dollars to opt out of a city wide vaccine mandate. The law didn't apply to children.
That precedent has been the basis for the mandate of dozens of now liability-free vaccines for children and adults, where no epidemic (or even one case) exists, at the costs of thousands, or even hundred of thousands, per year to opt out. It is even the basis on which the Supreme Court ruled that women can be force sterilized, for the good of themselves and society, of course.
Bad precedent, plus a century, has resulted in the legalization of actual war crimes.
The current vaccine mandate enforcement drive by Merck and Friends has driven our community, and those who never questioned vaccines before now, back to a basic question at hand here.
Who owns your body?
The knee jerk reaction , and normal human response for Amerikans is, "I do".
But that is not what most governments believe. Even under our Constitution of individual liberties, governments strive to control even your medical choices, and if they can't, they will find a reason to justify it, and the means to carry out their will.
In 21st Century Amerika, there are no deadly epidemics of communicable disease, despite the fact that we are subject to constant fear campaigns that one is coming. In fact no such event has happened in our lifetime. If the fear mongers want to scare you into fearing deadly epidemics, they have to go back more than a hundred years. So the circumstances for the justification of the government's actions in Jacobson v. Massachusetts exist only in the history books.
So in this age of medical tech, including vaccines, that most people want, why do mandates still exist? And if Jacobson can justify the sexual mutilation of women, then what else can it justify as medical technology progresses over the next century and beyond?
What new medical interventions and body tech will The Gates Foundation invent and convince (bribe) governments and NGOs to force people into utilizing? Where will the battle to end coerced "medical care" begin?
I submit to you that it has begun in South Dakota. Today.
South Dakota House Majority Leader, Representative Lee Qualm has introduced HB 1235, An Act to Revise Provisions Regarding Immunizations.
The bill repeals all vaccine mandates in the State.
South Dakota would be the first FPSA state to have no vaccine mandates at all, joining other governments like the Fascist United Kingdom, Japan and Canada, in uncoerced vaccine decision making.
But the bill goes even further. It ends medical mandates altogether. It adds new law that reads:
"Section 5. That a NEW SECTION be added:
334-22-6.1. Discrimination-Immunization
Every person has the inalienable right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion that the person accepts any medical intervention, including immunization. No person may be discriminated against for refusal to accept an unwanted medical intervention, including immunization."
The State of South Dakota would function under the truth that you own your body, and codifies into law that you make your own medical decisions; and no one can coerce your choices or discriminate against you because of them.
This is the real conversation that we should be having now. Begging the government not to take away our right to bodily integrity, or trying to claw back religious and philosophical exemptions that give us "loopholes" that "allow" us to make our own decisions about our own bodies is becoming an outdated conversation that is based on a lie. The lie that we have no right to bodily integrity in the first place, and government is doing us a favor by giving us even a medical exemption.
It is time for Amerika to decide who owns a person's medical choices. Is it the State, or the person in the body who must live (or die) with the consequences of those medical choices?
I urge you to change the conversation in your state. Take the South Dakota bill to your legislators, tell them about Henning Jacobson, and ask them who they think owns your medical choices.
Who owns your body?