Story at-a-glance
- According to Alan Dershowitz’s interpretation of Constitutional law, you only have the right to refuse to be vaccinated against a disease that would affect only you. You do not have the right to refuse a contagious disease that might spread to others
- As the basis and justification for his legal orientation on this issue, Dershowitz relies on a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jacobson v. Massachusetts
- According to Robert F. Kennedy, there is a “big Constitutional chasm” between this 1905 case and today’s vaccine mandates. Jacobson sued to avoid the vaccine and the fine for refusing the vaccine, which was $5. When he lost, he paid the fine. There’s a big difference between paying a small fine, and being forcibly injected with a potentially hazardous vaccine, against your will
- According to a recent poll, about half of Americans say they want to get the COVID-19 vaccine; 27% say they will “definitely” refuse and another 12% say they will “probably” refuse it
- 1 in 40 people — not 1 in 1 million — are injured by vaccines, and a clinician who administers vaccines will have an average of 1.3 adverse vaccine events per month
READ MORE
Image by Mirko Sajkov from Pixabay
Image by carolinaca1995 from Pixabay
Related posts:
Scottish Newspaper Asks Readers if COVID Concentration Camps Should be Introduced
USA/DC WHICH FORCED KILLER JABS ON AMERICANS REFUSE TO HELP THE INJURED AND DISABLED FROM THE WITCH’...
COVID CHOICE
After Chinese Vaccine Fails, China Launches Smear Campaign Against Pfizer
Iranian envoy to Yemen dies from COVID-19
Trump was so weak from Covid he could barely carry his hospital bag, book claims