News
Featured Image
Public healthShutterstock

June 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Legislatures in at least 15 U.S. states have passed or are currently considering measures to crack down on public health agencies in the wake of the agencies’ unprecedented use of power during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to a May report from the Network for Public Health Law (NPHL) and the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) — neither organization is in favor of the laws — the new state legislation will sharply check the authority of public health officials to unilaterally enact specific measures which restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens during a public health emergency.

“In recent months, at least 15 state legislatures have passed or are considering measures to limit severely the legal authority of public health agencies,” the report says, adding that “other states may consider such legislation in the future.”

A sampling of the laws described in the report include those which would:

  • prohibit requiring masks (North Dakota)

  • remove the power of the governor to force the closure of businesses (Kansas)

  • ban quarantine orders (Montana)

  • forbid state hospitals and universities to require vaccines for students and employees (a new law in Arizona blocks vaccine requirements except in K-12 school settings, imposing criminal penalties for violations)

  • block local health agencies from acting in a manner inconsistent with the orders of the state health department or the governor (Texas)

  • impose time limits for emergency orders (a new Florida law requires the automatic expiration of local emergency orders after 7 days, or 42 days with a majority vote for extension, and goes on to ban any substantially similar orders for the same emergency)

  • return power to the legislature (an Ohio law will give the legislature power to block or halt edicts issued by public health agencies)

The NPHL and NACCHO report claims that the new laws are apt to “lead to preventable tragedies.”

“Specifically,” the document reads, “this report finds that dissatisfaction and anger at perceived overreaches by governors and public health officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an onslaught of legislative proposals to eliminate or limit the emergency powers and public health authority used by these officials.”

The document doesn’t discuss the “preventable tragedies” which already resulted from last year’s public health measures themselves, which radically disrupted the lives of citizens by putting millions out of work, shutting down private businesses, damaging the supply chain, canceling important life events, and keeping children out of school. Crushing restrictions placed upon everyday life since early 2020 have led to surging rates of substance abuse, domestic violence, depression, and even suicide attempts by the very young.

A recent report published by the CDC found that last year “the proportion of mental health-related emergency department (ED) visits among adolescents aged 12–17 years increased 31% compared with that during 2019.”

According to the CDC report, “In May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, ED visits for suspected suicide attempts began to increase among adolescents aged 12–17 years, especially girls. [From] February 21 [until] March 20, 2021, suspected suicide attempt ED visits were 50.6% higher among girls aged 12–17 years than during the same period in 2019; among boys aged 12–17 years, suspected suicide attempt ED visits increased 3.7%.”

While the NPHL and NACCHO report argues that public health agencies should continue to be empowered to issue requirements and place restrictions on public life at their discretion, studies have repeatedly shown the inefficacy of public health measures like masking, social distancing, and lockdowns, which have resulted in unprecedented social harm.

A new study conducted by statisticians at Munich University found “no direct connection” between Germany’s lockdown and decreasing COVID-19 infection rates, demonstrating that “lockdowns may have had little effect on controlling the coronavirus pandemic” according to The Telegraph.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
  Show Petition Text
1069844 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1100000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

People of goodwill can disagree about the safety, efficacy and religious implications of a new vaccine for the coronavirus.

But, everyone should agree on this point:

No government can force anyone who has reached legal adulthood to be vaccinated for the coronavirus. Equally, no government can vaccinate minors for the coronavirus against the will of their parents or guardians.

Please SIGN this urgent petition which urges policymakers at every level of government to reject calls for mandatory coronavirus vaccination.

Fear of a disease - which we know very little about, relative to other similar diseases - must not lead to knee-jerk reactions regarding public health, nor can it justify supporting the hidden agenda of governmental as well as non-governmental bodies that have apparent conflicts of interest in plans to restrict personal freedoms. 

The so-called "public health experts" have gotten it wrong many times during the current crisis. We should not, therefore, allow their opinions to rush decision-makers into policies regarding vaccination.

And, while some people, like Bill Gates, may have a lot of money, his opinion and that of his NGO (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) - namely, that life will not return to normal till people are widely vaccinated - should not be permitted to influence policy decisions on a coronavirus vaccination program.

Finally, we must also not allow the rush by pharmaceutical companies to produce a new coronavirus vaccine to, itself, become an imperative for vaccination.

Unwitting citizens must not be used as guinea pigs for New World Order ideologues, or Big Pharma, in pursuit of a vaccine (and, profits) which may not even protect against future mutated strains of the coronavirus.

And it goes without saying that the production of vaccines using aborted babies for cell replication is a total non-starter, as the technique is gravely immoral.

However, if after sufficient study of the issue, a person who has reached the age of majority wishes to be vaccinated with a morally produced vaccine, along with his children, that is his business.

But we cannot and will not permit the government to make that decision for us.

Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this petition, urging policymakers at all levels of government to reject mandatory coronavirus vaccination.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Bill Gates: Life won’t go back to ‘normal’ until population 'widely vaccinated' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bill-gates-life-wont-go-back-to-normal-until-population-widely-vaccinated

COVID-19 scare leads to more digital surveillance, talk of mandatory vaccine 'tattoos' for kids' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/covid-19-scare-leads-to-more-digital-surveillance-talk-of-mandatory-vaccine-tattoos-for-kids

Trudeau says no return to ‘normal’ without vaccine: 'Could take 12 to 18 months' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trudeau-says-no-return-to-normal-without-vaccine-could-take-12-to-18-months

Trudeau mulls making coronavirus vaccine mandatory for Canadians - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trudeau-mulls-making-coronavirus-vaccine-mandatory-for-canadians

US bishop vows to ‘refuse’ COVID-19 vaccine if made from ‘aborted fetal tissue' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-bishop-vows-to-refuse-covid-19-vaccine-if-made-from-aborted-fetal-tissue

** While LifeSite opposes immorally-produced vaccines using aborted fetal cell lines, we do not have a position on any particular coronavirus vaccines produced without such moral problems. We realize many have general concerns about vaccines, but also recognize that millions of lives have been saved due to vaccines.

*** Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

  Hide Petition Text

The May 2021 NPHL and NACCHO report lays the responsibility for the laws at the feet of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative legal group interested in promoting federalism and limited government.

“ALEC is advocating a slate of policy initiatives and model bills crafted to limit the authority of public health agencies and weaken their ability to protect the public’s health,” the document reads.

“ALEC’s nationally coordinated campaign focuses on curtailing emergency powers of executive branch state and local government officials and public health agencies, and shifting emergency and public health authority to the legislative branch, including state Legislatures and local legislative entities such as county commissioners.”

The NPHL is a legal organization which ostensibly promotes issues pertaining to public health, however its reach arguably goes farther than addressing solutions to communicable disease or issuing dietary guidance. Recently, it declared that “racism is a public health crisis,” and published an issue brief entitled “A Strategy to Transition Rapidly Away From the Use of Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas.”

Similarly, the NACCHO is a Washington-based lobby group which recently put out an online course for public health department staff which teaches that the “fundamental cause of health inequities” is “social injustice.”

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.