Featured Image

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

MADISON, Wisconsin, March 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — With support from broad initiatives to protect citizens from the growing trend of de facto mandated COVID-19 vaccinations, Wisconsin state legislators have responded with two bills affirming that neither local health officials nor employers can require these injections of residents or employees, respectively.

In a public hearing yesterday, hosted by the Assembly’s Committee on Constitution and Ethics, members were exposed to a continuous stream of support for the following two bills:

  • AB23 prohibits state and local health officers from “requiring individuals to receive a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which causes COVID-19.”

  • AB25 prohibits “an employer from requiring an individual to receive a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus or show evidence of having received such a vaccine.”

In his opening remarks introducing the bills, co-sponsor state Sen. André Jacque (R-De Pere) stated “[a]pprehension by the general public in receiving COVID vaccines is understandable, given that their development and approval was expedited at breakneck speed and not as robustly examined and tested for long-term effects.”

“Vaccines can kill or make some people with auto-immune disorders … very sick. Forcing the vaccination of millions of young and healthy citizens who perceive themselves to be at an acceptably low risk from COVID-19 is ethically disputed,” he said.

“We don’t know how long immunity conferred by the vaccines lasts, none of the trials were designed to tell us if the vaccine prevents serious disease or virus transmission, and, we don’t yet know if they have any adverse effects on various subpopulations,” Jacque said.

He further noted that according to a December ABC News/Ipsos poll, “61% of Americans believe their state shouldn’t require that people get vaccinated to return to work or school, a number that rises to 63% among political independents.”

With regards to the rights of employees, Jacque affirmed it is “imperative that a person’s choice of whether or not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine does not impact their ability to make a living and provide for their family.”

And these situations are “not hypothetical,” he added, highlighting several examples from his own district, and the case of a nursing home in Janesville, which attempted such a mandate, even laying off employees who declined injections of these experimental substances.

“It is critical to respect, and protect, individual freedom in medical decisions,” he concluded.

Legislative Director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, Matt Sande, introduced the highly developed position of the Personhood Alliance (PA) on vaccine ethics, which he directly helped develop as a founding member of PA.

As he summarized, this PA policy “opposes and deems morally unacceptable the production and testing of vaccines using the remains of aborted human beings.” And, secondly, it “affirms the rights of all people to refuse medical treatment and to reject violations of their and their family’s bodily integrity, moral conscience, and constitutional protections through forced or coerced vaccines.”

“Assembly bills 23 & 25 specifically reinforce our vaccine ethics position. For the many Wisconsinites who earnestly avoid any entanglement in the abortion industry, forcing them to receive a vaccine produced from or tested using aborted fetal cells is repugnant, a total violation of conscience,” he said.

This is the case for the current Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines which were “unethically tested” using fetal cells “harvested from the kidney of a preborn baby aborted in the Netherlands in 1973.” And the new Janssen / Johnson & Johnson experimental vaccine uses aborted cell lines from an 18-week-old fetus aborted in 1985 “in its development and production,” Sande said.

Finally, “whether or not a vaccine is ethically produced and tested, it is unethical, and highly offensive, for the state, an employer, or anyone to force it on an individual who may strongly resist it for a variety of health, conscience, religious or personal reasons. It is a direct physical assault on that person’s bodily integrity. Such an assault can leave a deep emotional and psychological impact, inducing intense fear, distrust, and anger,” he said.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
  Show Petition Text
1081971 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.


Bill Gates: Life won’t go back to ‘normal’ until population 'widely vaccinated' -

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' -

Trudeau mulls making coronavirus vaccine mandatory for Canadians -

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:

  Hide Petition Text

Kimberly Smith, an African American from Oregon, stated AB 23 & 25 were “very pro-black bills!” She encouraged all to read a book titled Medical Apartheid, which in her words “describes the atrocities by the medical community” against black people and why the latter suffer from high degrees of iatrophobia, that is the fear of doctors.

The author, Harriet Washington, reports on many such abuses throughout history, including, according to Smith, the use of an experimental vaccine in Haiti which “killed Haitian children and was moved to Los Angeles, and was given to Black and Hispanic children,” killing many there, as well.

Smith summarized in her testimony, that “a vote against bill 23 and 25, or a veto against bill 23 or 25, is an act of violence against the black community. It is white supremacy. It is racist in its most simplest [sic] form.”

Expressing sincere gratitude to the legislators, Smith, a Democrat, said, “I want to thank the Republican legislature for advocating for the black community, I think without even knowing it.”

Each of the spokespersons of organizations, and other citizens who testify, are required to submit a “hearing slip.” At the end of the session, Committee Chairman Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego), held up a stack of approximately 100 hearing slips submitted by those who either registered or testified in favor of these bills. Then, he showed the room the slip of the solitary individual who registered against identifying this person as “the UW Health and Clinics lobbyist, Connie Schulze.”

Wichgers told LifeSiteNews that this was “a lengthy committee hearing which included substantial information with overwhelming sentiments in favor” of the bills. “As the chair, I am compelled to hold an executive session soon, obtain a vote from our committee and petition the speaker to send it to the Assembly floor.”

With the Wisconsin state Senate having already passed these bills, passage in the Assembly would send them to the desk of Gov. Tony Evers (D). His position on the bills is not clear yet.


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.