Blog/Rule of Law
Posted Jun 16, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
Houston Methodist Hospital is telling employees that if they refuse to take the vaccine, they will be fired. Now 117 employees have joined a lawsuit against the hospital, and they are saying that the hospital is trying to force people to take an experimental vaccine. Instead, the dictatorial hospital management is comparing it to the flu vaccine and refuses to acknowledge that there is even a difference. Then a federal judge dismissed the employee suit siding with the tyranny of the hospital. A dark day for human rights.
U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes, in the Southern District of Texas, issued a ruling on Saturday that upheld the hospital’s new policy, announced in April. The judge said that the hospital’s decision to mandate inoculations for its employees was consistent with public policy. Quite frankly, this does not look like a hospital you should allow a family member to even enter. They obviously have no respect for human rights. How can the protests for restrictions against abortions be covered under the right of privacy but not this experimental vaccine?
Judge Huges is known as the most “impertinent judge” in Texas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has pulled the U.S. district judge off cases at least three times and called him out for racist and sexist comments on the bench. Yet the judge hasn’t faced judicial discipline. This is one judge who should be stripped of all power. His decision is just absurd and it defies the Right to Privacy. Perhaps he deliberately did this to try to overturn Roe v Wade or he is just crazy. Meanwhile, any family member in Houston Methodist Hospital I would personally have moved ASAP. They could engage in unlawfully forced vaccinations without even getting permission from the family. They should start with making a rule that Public Policy dictates all Houston Federal Judges must be vaccinated.
Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. Understanding the foundation of Roe v Wade and why it cannot be overturned without jeopardizing our right to privacy in the face of this contrived pandemic is critical. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning the distribution of birth control to married couples, ruling that the law violated their implied right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). How do you enforce that a married couple illegally used a condom during sex? Does an FBI agency have to watch? And in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults. Again, there is no way to enforce such laws without a government agent observing every sexual act.
To overturn Roe v Wade would also mean that the government can order you to take vaccines that violate your religion and even alter your DNA. We must be very careful about overruling Roe v Wade for to do so that would result in the termination of the right to privacy would sweep through everything, and we all could then be subject to tyrannical decrees in the name of public health. Do you really want to give people like Fauci supreme power to imprison you or accept whatever he declares is in the public interest?
Bill Gates wanted to know Melinda’s IQ before he married her. Under Gates, the government could just as easily impose an IQ test and determine you are not qualified to have children — in the public interest, of course. Gates has already funded remote control birth-control by implanting chips into women. He is obsessed with population control.
I am not making up wild conspiracy theories here. The U.S. Supreme Court actually upheld the eugenics views in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., that actually ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court actually wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). This case has not been overturned, but if it were challenged, then the same right to privacy from which Roe v Wade stands would come into play. Overturn that case, and a lot more tyranny will follow. The only possible way to overturn Roe v Wade must involve the due process right to life and liberty without somehow overturning the right to privacy. That can be a real Pandora’s Box.
The old saying, “Be careful what you wish for!” comes to mind. I would NOT be in favor of overturning Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court for fear that somehow we lose the right to privacy. Those that want to eliminate abortion based on their religious views are not that dissimilar to those who wanted to end slavery on the same human rights platform. Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees the Right to Privacy in explicit terms, for this is a much bigger issue than just abortion. These vaccines are showing the same argument — IF IT’S NOT YOUR BODY, IT’S NOT YOUR CHOICE.