Something about the jacobson decision being cited from 1905 in the decision kind of concerns me because I'm not big on the idea of forced innoculation.
The basic gist there is there was a special exemption given to religious services, and the IL GOP wanted to have the same cap. And everyone said no, and said they would be watching BLM to make sure the Gov didn't give them unfair access.
Kav agreed and rejected the IL GOP's appeal
That' imo is a fair ruling.
As for vaccines, I work in healthcare, so I suspect we have very different opinions on vaccines pede. Let's not fight today, we, are not each other's enemy
I'm against MANDATORY anything. I'm suspicious of anything remotely Bill Gates because he wants to kill people to control the population AND he wants tracers in vaccines. Those tracers will be used to roll out the mark of the beast prohibiting anyone without it from being able to buy or sell ANYTHING. Once again, draconian punishment which is the equivalent of a MANDATE.
Putting RFID chips in people would be the "mark of the beast". He's probably part of the reason why Africans kill healthcare workers in their country. They force vaccines on their families and it ends up killing them.
My opinion on vaccines is pretty neutral. My grandmother worked in Jonas Salks lab in the 50s. I'm not her to fight. If anything just have a meaningful debate where I hope to come out with more information than coming in. So even if you are for forced innoculation (I am not), we can always respectfully disagree.
Did you know Kavanaugh also refused to take the case up (cuz he agreed)
But I'll bite, what exactly do you think the ruling said?
I didn't read the whole thing there is like 22 pages. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/20-2175/20-2175-2020-09-03.html
Something about the jacobson decision being cited from 1905 in the decision kind of concerns me because I'm not big on the idea of forced innoculation.
Oh I thought you meant the lock down case
The basic gist there is there was a special exemption given to religious services, and the IL GOP wanted to have the same cap. And everyone said no, and said they would be watching BLM to make sure the Gov didn't give them unfair access.
Kav agreed and rejected the IL GOP's appeal
That' imo is a fair ruling.
As for vaccines, I work in healthcare, so I suspect we have very different opinions on vaccines pede. Let's not fight today, we, are not each other's enemy
I'm against MANDATORY anything. I'm suspicious of anything remotely Bill Gates because he wants to kill people to control the population AND he wants tracers in vaccines. Those tracers will be used to roll out the mark of the beast prohibiting anyone without it from being able to buy or sell ANYTHING. Once again, draconian punishment which is the equivalent of a MANDATE.
Putting RFID chips in people would be the "mark of the beast". He's probably part of the reason why Africans kill healthcare workers in their country. They force vaccines on their families and it ends up killing them.
You can’t get your lady balls waxed without a vaccine.
Who said anything about mandatory vaccines?
One could be in favor of mandatory vaccination in principle....
But absolutely not for a new unproven vaccine for a disease that has such a low death rate!!
My opinion on vaccines is pretty neutral. My grandmother worked in Jonas Salks lab in the 50s. I'm not her to fight. If anything just have a meaningful debate where I hope to come out with more information than coming in. So even if you are for forced innoculation (I am not), we can always respectfully disagree.
As someone who got COVID19, this isn't a fun illness to get. That's all I'll really say. A vaccine is a godsend