Buddy
The Living Force
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/188537-Warning-Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Coming-Soon
[quote author=188537]
It's imperative that you educate yourself about vaccinations, influenza, vaccine risks, and the public health laws in your state, so you know what you're up against come the beginning of the new school year.
You need to find out what your rights and options are under new public health laws that may require you and your children to get vaccinated or be quarantined.
Many do not realize that such laws even exist. But the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA), which was passed by many states in 2002, includes provisions that would allow state health officials to use the state militia to:
* Take control of all roads leading into and out of cities and states
* Seize homes, cars, telephones, computers, food, fuel, clothing, firearms and alcoholic beverages for their own use (and not be held liable if these actions result in the destruction of personal property)
* Arrest, imprison and forcibly examine, vaccinate and medicate citizens without consent (and not be held liable if these actions result in your death or injury)
Take Action Now
[/quote]
It seems the party responsible for initiating this (MSEHPA) is Lawrence O. Gostin, an attorney at the Washington, D.C. Centers for Disease Control. It would be interesting to find out why, if the initial proposal was drafted at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did Mr. Gostin find it necessary to lie his butt off to keep it from looking like he thought it all up himself (or perhaps, had he already had it prepared?)
Some info on "The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA)":
The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) is a proposal by the Center for Law and the Public's Health, a joint venture of Georgetown University and Johns Hopkins University, to aid America's state legislatures in revising their public health laws to, as proponents put it, more effectively control epidemics and respond to bioterrorism.
The proposal has been criticized for what has been called a "sweeping reach" that could be abused by governments.
The initial proposal was drafted at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by Lawrence O. Gostin, an attorney at the Washington, D.C., center, during the anthrax letter scare in fall 2001. It took him "three to four weeks' to do so, he said.
The draft, dated October 23, 2001, was produced by Gostin without consultation from any of the various groups he listed on the title page as being "in collaboration with", namely, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and the National Association of City and County Health Officials. The claim of collaboration was an error, and a later version, dated December 21, 2001, made the revised statement on its title page that the law was a "draft for discussion … to assist" those organizations.
The model act subsequently came under the aegis of the Turning Point National Collaborative on Public Health Statute Modernization to revise state health laws. On September 16, 2003, a third draft of the law was issued. On June 15, 2004. it won the 2004 Distinguished Achievement in Public Health Law Award from the Public Health Law Association.
The model act would revise some subjects covered by existing public health laws, such as reporting of contagious diseases, disposal of the dead, and quarantines.
Critics said, however, that it did so in such sweeping language that it "could turn governors into dictators" as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons claimed, and Phyllis Schlafly called it "an unprecedented assault on the constitutional rights of the American people."
The very definition of a "public health emergency," which triggered the law's provisions, critics said, was so broad that an influenza outbreak could qualify as an "emergency". The LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund feared it could lead to imprisonment of those with AIDS.
But attorneys Jason W. Sapsin, Stephen P. Teret; Scott Burris, Julie Samia Mair, James G. Hodge Jr, Jon S. Vernick and Gostin wrote in an article in the August 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Assn., that "Provided those powers are bounded by legal safeguards, individuals should be required to yield some of their autonomy, liberty, or property to protect the health and security of the community." This is one of the classic uses of the police power of a sovereign state.
George J. Annas, a lawyer at the Boston University School of Public Health and the MSEHPA's leading critic, said: "The Model Act seems to have been drafted for a different age; it is more appropriate for the United States of the 19th century than for the United States of the 21st century." Annas said the law was unconstitutional.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_State_Emergency_Health_Powers_Act
The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) grants public health powers to state and local public health authorities to ensure a strong, effective, and timely planning, prevention, and response mechanisms to public health emergencies (including bioterrorism) while also respecting individual rights. Developed by the Centers in collaboration with a host of partners, MSEHPA has been used by state and local legislators and health officials nationwide as a guide for considering public health law reform in their states.
Legislative Status Update: Since its completion on December 21, 2001, the Centers has been tracking state legislative activity related to MSEHPA. As of July 15, 2006, the Act has been introduced in whole or part through 171 bills or resolutions in forty-four (44) states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariannas Islands. Thirty-eight (38) states [AL, AK, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, LA, ME, MD, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WI, and WY] and DC have passed a total of 66 bills or resolutions that include provisions from or closely related to the Act. The extent to which the Act's provisions are incorporated into each state's laws varies.
_http://www.publichealthlaw.net/ModelLaws/MSEHPA.php
Bills that have been passed in Individual States:
_http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEHPA%20Leg%20Activity.pdf
James G. Hodge, Jr., and Lawrence O. Gostin, The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act - A Brief Commentary (January 2002):
_http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/Center%20MSEHPA%20Commentary.pdf
More Info:
_http://www.publichealthlaw.net/ModelLaws/
An Alternative View
Legislative Alternatives to the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act:
Critical Points
* The MSEHPA is Not Necessary
* The MSEHPA Poses Unacceptable Ethical Issues
* The MSEHPA Can Undermine Existing Emergency Preparedness Laws
* The MSEHPA Does Not Address Necessary Public Health Reforms
* Incremental Reform and Planning is the Key to Effective Public Health Law
* The act is based on the assumption that existing state laws are wholly inadequate to confront a bioterrorism event and should be superseded by a comprehensive act which will override any conflicting state laws.
* The central argument put forward for the MSEHPA and other model laws such as the Turning Point Model Public Health Law is that public health laws are outdated and would not be upheld in modern courts. The assumption that state public health laws drafted 50, 100, or even more years ago cannot be useful in the modern world is at the core of the Centers for Disease Control funding for public health law research and most of the funding provided by private foundations.
* The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act ignores a key fact: judges will not stand in the way of emergency actions taken to protect the public from a clear and present danger, and if they do, the state appeals court will over turn their rulings in a matter of hours.
* The most serious flaw in the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act is that it ignores the diversity of state government structures and state constitutional law. It also assumes that the states have no emergency preparedness laws or procedures.
* The fundamental problem with our response to bioterrorism is not inadequate legal authority. It is that health departments do not have adequate political and economic support.
Source: _http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/bt/MSEHPA_review.htm
[quote author=188537]
It's imperative that you educate yourself about vaccinations, influenza, vaccine risks, and the public health laws in your state, so you know what you're up against come the beginning of the new school year.
You need to find out what your rights and options are under new public health laws that may require you and your children to get vaccinated or be quarantined.
Many do not realize that such laws even exist. But the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA), which was passed by many states in 2002, includes provisions that would allow state health officials to use the state militia to:
* Take control of all roads leading into and out of cities and states
* Seize homes, cars, telephones, computers, food, fuel, clothing, firearms and alcoholic beverages for their own use (and not be held liable if these actions result in the destruction of personal property)
* Arrest, imprison and forcibly examine, vaccinate and medicate citizens without consent (and not be held liable if these actions result in your death or injury)
Take Action Now
[/quote]
It seems the party responsible for initiating this (MSEHPA) is Lawrence O. Gostin, an attorney at the Washington, D.C. Centers for Disease Control. It would be interesting to find out why, if the initial proposal was drafted at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did Mr. Gostin find it necessary to lie his butt off to keep it from looking like he thought it all up himself (or perhaps, had he already had it prepared?)
Some info on "The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA)":
The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) is a proposal by the Center for Law and the Public's Health, a joint venture of Georgetown University and Johns Hopkins University, to aid America's state legislatures in revising their public health laws to, as proponents put it, more effectively control epidemics and respond to bioterrorism.
The proposal has been criticized for what has been called a "sweeping reach" that could be abused by governments.
The initial proposal was drafted at the behest of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by Lawrence O. Gostin, an attorney at the Washington, D.C., center, during the anthrax letter scare in fall 2001. It took him "three to four weeks' to do so, he said.
The draft, dated October 23, 2001, was produced by Gostin without consultation from any of the various groups he listed on the title page as being "in collaboration with", namely, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and the National Association of City and County Health Officials. The claim of collaboration was an error, and a later version, dated December 21, 2001, made the revised statement on its title page that the law was a "draft for discussion … to assist" those organizations.
The model act subsequently came under the aegis of the Turning Point National Collaborative on Public Health Statute Modernization to revise state health laws. On September 16, 2003, a third draft of the law was issued. On June 15, 2004. it won the 2004 Distinguished Achievement in Public Health Law Award from the Public Health Law Association.
The model act would revise some subjects covered by existing public health laws, such as reporting of contagious diseases, disposal of the dead, and quarantines.
Critics said, however, that it did so in such sweeping language that it "could turn governors into dictators" as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons claimed, and Phyllis Schlafly called it "an unprecedented assault on the constitutional rights of the American people."
The very definition of a "public health emergency," which triggered the law's provisions, critics said, was so broad that an influenza outbreak could qualify as an "emergency". The LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund feared it could lead to imprisonment of those with AIDS.
But attorneys Jason W. Sapsin, Stephen P. Teret; Scott Burris, Julie Samia Mair, James G. Hodge Jr, Jon S. Vernick and Gostin wrote in an article in the August 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Assn., that "Provided those powers are bounded by legal safeguards, individuals should be required to yield some of their autonomy, liberty, or property to protect the health and security of the community." This is one of the classic uses of the police power of a sovereign state.
George J. Annas, a lawyer at the Boston University School of Public Health and the MSEHPA's leading critic, said: "The Model Act seems to have been drafted for a different age; it is more appropriate for the United States of the 19th century than for the United States of the 21st century." Annas said the law was unconstitutional.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_State_Emergency_Health_Powers_Act
The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) grants public health powers to state and local public health authorities to ensure a strong, effective, and timely planning, prevention, and response mechanisms to public health emergencies (including bioterrorism) while also respecting individual rights. Developed by the Centers in collaboration with a host of partners, MSEHPA has been used by state and local legislators and health officials nationwide as a guide for considering public health law reform in their states.
Legislative Status Update: Since its completion on December 21, 2001, the Centers has been tracking state legislative activity related to MSEHPA. As of July 15, 2006, the Act has been introduced in whole or part through 171 bills or resolutions in forty-four (44) states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariannas Islands. Thirty-eight (38) states [AL, AK, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, LA, ME, MD, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WI, and WY] and DC have passed a total of 66 bills or resolutions that include provisions from or closely related to the Act. The extent to which the Act's provisions are incorporated into each state's laws varies.
_http://www.publichealthlaw.net/ModelLaws/MSEHPA.php
Bills that have been passed in Individual States:
_http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEHPA%20Leg%20Activity.pdf
James G. Hodge, Jr., and Lawrence O. Gostin, The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act - A Brief Commentary (January 2002):
_http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/Center%20MSEHPA%20Commentary.pdf
More Info:
_http://www.publichealthlaw.net/ModelLaws/
An Alternative View
Legislative Alternatives to the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act:
Critical Points
* The MSEHPA is Not Necessary
* The MSEHPA Poses Unacceptable Ethical Issues
* The MSEHPA Can Undermine Existing Emergency Preparedness Laws
* The MSEHPA Does Not Address Necessary Public Health Reforms
* Incremental Reform and Planning is the Key to Effective Public Health Law
* The act is based on the assumption that existing state laws are wholly inadequate to confront a bioterrorism event and should be superseded by a comprehensive act which will override any conflicting state laws.
* The central argument put forward for the MSEHPA and other model laws such as the Turning Point Model Public Health Law is that public health laws are outdated and would not be upheld in modern courts. The assumption that state public health laws drafted 50, 100, or even more years ago cannot be useful in the modern world is at the core of the Centers for Disease Control funding for public health law research and most of the funding provided by private foundations.
* The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act ignores a key fact: judges will not stand in the way of emergency actions taken to protect the public from a clear and present danger, and if they do, the state appeals court will over turn their rulings in a matter of hours.
* The most serious flaw in the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act is that it ignores the diversity of state government structures and state constitutional law. It also assumes that the states have no emergency preparedness laws or procedures.
* The fundamental problem with our response to bioterrorism is not inadequate legal authority. It is that health departments do not have adequate political and economic support.
Source: _http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/bt/MSEHPA_review.htm
