Is AG Peterson making the wrong argument?
By Jennifer Hicks
I have previously cautioned against giving too high of a level of praise to those in our government who are so late to the game when it comes to defending the rights of the people. While it is good that Governor Ricketts and AG Peterson are finally taking action to try to put an end to a mask mandate in Omaha, do not lose sight of the fact that the argument they are making is not one which defends YOUR rights. It is an argument that defends the rights of those who govern you. I believe that the question should not be one of WHO in our government has the authority to impose a medical mandate, but on whether or not ANY governing body has the authority to usurp a person's right to bodily autonomy. Below are my thoughts about the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding vaccine mandates. And in the video which follows, you will find the solution which will effectively end all mandates which are a violation of our rights. (Hint: WE THE PEOPLE are the answer.)
_________________________________________________________
“These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID–19 vaccines," said Justice Thomas in his dissenting opinion of the case which permitted the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers to stand. He's right that the court is only tasked to address the issues put before them; and (whether he intended to or not), he has pointed to precisely the question which SHOULD have been argued, I think.
Justice Kavanaugh sided with the libs on the mandate for healthcare workers. He said, “After all, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: first, do no harm.”
Justice Kavanaugh failed the American people. As Justice Thomas pointed out, the question that was put to them was not about the efficacy or importance of C-19 vaccines. It was specifically to do with whether or not the authority to impose such a mandate was allowed by the law. But Kavanaugh veered outside of that and supported his argument with an unsubstantiated narrative about C-19 which assumes (without evidence) that the level of danger and harm which is posed by C-19 is something which is not widely in question. There are mountains of evidence which would support the argument that mandating such a vaccine is where the real danger and harm lies.
The efficacy and the importance of C-19 vaccines is precisely what should have been the question posed to the courts all along. And even before the vaccines, those who were fighting the masks were making the wrong arguments to the courts, I think. Their arguments have always been rooted in some sort of acceptance of the false narrative that C-19 poses a tremendous threat to the public, when the reality is that it has a fatality rate of less than half of one percent. (By comparison, the fatality rate of smallpox was approximately 30%.) The false narrative of C-19 also excludes the truth that there are successful and inexpensive treatment options for the virus.
I believe the arguments that should have been made in court by those who were fighting mask mandates and C-19 vaccine mandates should have always been framed by the fact that, written into our U.S. Constitution is the acknowledgement that our government recognizes that we have the freedom to decide for ourselves which belief system it is that we live by. We have right to make the decision for ourselves that, when what our government is asking us to adhere to is nothing more than a system of belief rather than a reasonable or justifiable request, we will reject that belief system if it is not in alignment with the dictates of our conscience.
So I believe that those who are seeking decisions from the court are making the wrong arguments when they permit the argument to take place within the framework of a false narrative. It is the false narrative which should be challenged, for that is at the root of all of it. By making the wrong arguments, the "victories" that are won in some cases are rather shallow. For us to have true protection of our medical freedom, the issue at hand should never be WHO gets to impose medical mandates upon us. No, we should be looking at whether or not there is truly any legitimate basis for the mandates in the first place. And I believe that a court that allows a fair presentation of the evidence to be made would be hard pressed to find that the C-19 narrative is anything other than propaganda.
I will add one final thing which I might try to expand on in the future. Watch how it is that our Supreme Court Justices approach issues regarding medical freedom and compare it with how they approach Second Amendment issues. To my mind, when they tackle these issues, they often do not appear to be applying the same logic to each with regard to a person's inalienable rights in relation to the potential risk and danger posed by an environment. I'll save a discussion of that for another day. But mull it over and see if you observe the same kinds of discrepancies that I am seeing in how our Supreme Court Justices approach each issue.
