🚨법원, 모든 아동에 대한 대규모 강제 예방접종 선례를 설정했다 (💢윤석열정부가 이렇게 하지 않기를 바랍니다)

[Gloria]

https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-04-22-nc-courts-set-precedent-forced-vaccination-children.html

Courts set precedent for mass FORCED VACCINATION of all children – NaturalNews.com

Courts set precedent for mass FORCED VACCINATION of all children
04/22/2024 // Cassie B. // 3.1K Views

법원, 모든 아동에 대한 대규모 강제 예방접종 선례를 설정했다
2024/04/22 // Cassie B. // 조회수 3.1K

노스캐롤라이나주 항소법원이 

자신이나 부모의 동의 없이 코로나19 백신을 접종한 14세 소년과 

관련된 논란의 여지가 있는 판결로 모든 어린이에게 강제 예방접종을

시행하는 한 선례를 세웠습니다.
법원은 만장일치로 공공 준비 및 비상 대비법(PREP Act)이 

미성년자 태너 스미스(Tanner Smith)를 보호할 수 있는 

주법을 우선한다고 판결했습니다.

문제는 그린즈버러의 웨스턴 길퍼드 고등학교에 재학 중인 스미스가 학교에서 코로나19에 노출되었다는 소식을 듣면서 시작되었습니다. 그의 부모에게 보낸 편지에서 교육구는 그가 바이러스 검사를 받지 않는 한 공중 보건 전문가의 허가를 받을 때까지 축구 연습에 돌아갈 수 없다고 말했습니다. 편지에는 지역 학교에서 코로나19 검사를 제공하는 무료 진료소를 열 것이며 검사에 대한 동의가 필요할 것이라고 덧붙였습니다.

다음 날, 스미스는 축구 연습을 재개하고 싶어 무료 검사를 받기 위해 의붓아버지와 함께 병원에 갔다. 그런데 학교에서는 검사와 동시에 무료 예방접종 클리닉도 진행하고 있는 것으로 드러났습니다. 양아버지가 차에서 기다리고 있는 동안 Smith는 자신이 지시받은 테스트와 관련이 있다고 생각되는 양식을 작성했습니다. 한 진료소 직원이 어머니에게 연락을 시도했지만 연락이 닿지 않았지만 양아버지에게는 연락이 닿지 않은 것으로 알려졌습니다.

스미스는 병원 직원들에게 백신이 아니라 검사를 받으러 왔다고 주장하며 백신 접종을 원하지 않는다는 점을 분명히 밝혔지만, 한 병원 직원은 "어차피 접종을 해주세요"라고 말했다고 한다. 그는 항의에도 불구하고 부모의 동의 없이 화이자 코로나19 백신을 접종받았습니다.

우리는 인간의 자유를 위한 인프라를 구축하고 사람들이 정보를 얻고 건강하며 인식할 수 있도록 힘을 실어주고 있습니다. 여기에서 분산형, P2P, 무검열 Brighteon.io 자유 발언 플랫폼을 살펴보세요. Brighteon.AI에서 무료로 다운로드 가능한 생성 AI 도구에 대해 알아보세요. HealthRangerStore.com에서 구매할 때마다 지식과 풍요로움으로 인류에게 힘을 실어주기 위한 더 많은 도구를 구축하고 공유하려는 우리의 노력에 자금을 지원하는 데 도움이 됩니다.

Smith와 그의 어머니 Emily Happel은 태너의 신체적 자율성, 어머니의 헌법상의 자유 및 부모의 권리, 양측의 연방 헌법상의 권리 및 구타를 위반한 혐의로 백신 클리닉과 함께 교육구를 고소했습니다. 원심 법원은 PREP 법이 피고인을 보호한다는 이유로 이 소송을 기각하고 결정에 항소했습니다.

불행하게도 항소 법원은 원심의 원래 결정을 확인했으며 노스캐롤라이나 주법에서는 의료 서비스 제공자가 완전히 승인되지 않은 긴급 사용 승인이 있는 미성년자 백신을 제공하기 전에 부모 또는 법적 보호자로부터 서면 동의를 받도록 요구하고 있다고 밝혔습니다. FDA에 따르면, 법원은 태너가 자신의 의사에 반하여 주사를 맞는 "심각한 행위"로 인해 고통을 겪었다는 점을 인정하면서도 PREP 법이 이 주법을 우선한다고 주장합니다.

PREP법은 강제 예방접종을 허용하는 데 사용될 수 있습니다.
PREP 법은 2005년에 발효되었으며, 선언된 공중 보건 비상 상황에서 사용되는 보건 복지부 장관이 권장하는 "대응 조치"를 수행하는 당사자에게 책임 및 소송으로부터 면제를 제공합니다. 또한 백신과 같은 대책의 제조업체 및 유통업체에도 적용됩니다.

즉, 스미스가 백신을 원하지 않았고 그의 부모가 백신에 동의하지 않았다는 것은 전혀 중요하지 않습니다. PREP Act의 광범위한 보호는 그들이 원하는 것은 무엇이든 할 수 있음을 의미합니다. 법원이 지적한 바와 같이, "현명하게든 아니든, PREP 법의 일반 언어에는 면제 범위 내에서 구타 주장과 주 헌법상의 권리 침해가 포함되어 있으므로 원고의 청구에 대한 책임으로부터 피고를 보호합니다."

이는 위험한 선례를 세우는 것이며, 보건 비상사태를 가장하여 어린이들에게 강제로 백신을 접종한 것에 대해 어느 누구도 책임을 지지 않을 것임을 의미합니다.
이 기사의 출처는 다음과 같습니다.
TheVaccineReaction.org
AFN.net

A Court of Appeals in North Carolina has set a precedent for the forced vaccination of all children with a controversial ruling involving a 14-year-old boy who was given a COVID-19 vaccine without his consent or that of his parents.

The court ruled unanimously that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) preempted a state law that could have protected the minor, Tanner Smith.

The problem began when Smith, who is a student at Western Guilford High School in Greensboro, was informed that he had been exposed to COVID-19 at school. In a letter to his parents, the school district said that he could not return to football practice until he had been given clearance by a public health professional unless he got tested for the virus. The letter added that a local school would be holding a free clinic offering COVID-19 tests and that consent for the tests would be required.

The next day, Smith went with his stepfather to the clinic to take advantage of the free testing because he was eager to resume football practice. However, it turned out that the school was also holding a free vaccination clinic alongside the testing. With his stepfather waiting in the car, Smith filled out a form that he assumed was related to the testing he was instructed to undergo. A clinic worker reportedly attempted to contact his mother, who was not available, but they did not try to reach his stepfather.

Although Smith insisted to the workers at the clinic that he was there to receive a test and not the vaccine and made it clear he did not want to be vaccinated, a clinic worker reportedly said “give it to him anyway.” He ended up receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine over his protests and without obtaining parental consent.

We are building the infrastructure of human freedom and empowering people to be informed, healthy and aware. Explore our decentralized, peer-to-peer, uncensorable Brighteon.io free speech platform here. Learn about our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Every purchase at HealthRangerStore.com helps fund our efforts to build and share more tools for empowering humanity with knowledge and abundance.

Smith and his mother, Emily Happel, sued their school district, along with the vaccine clinic, for violating Tanner's bodily autonomy, his mother's constitutional liberty and parental rights, both parties' federal constitutional rights and battery. When a trial court dismissed this complaint on the grounds that the PREP Act shielded the defendants, they appealed the decision.

Unfortunately, the appeals court has affirmed the original decision by the trial court and said that even though North Carolina state law does require healthcare providers to get written consent from parents or legal guardians before giving minors vaccines with emergency use authorization that have not been fully approved by the FDA, the court maintains that the PREP Act preempts this state law, although it acknowledged that Tanner suffered due to the “egregious conduct” of being given the shot against his wishes.

The PREP Act can be used to allow forced vaccination

The PREP Act took effect in 2005, and it provides immunity from liability and lawsuits to parties carrying out “countermeasures” recommended by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that are used in a declared public health emergency. It also covers manufacturers and distributors of countermeasures such as vaccines.

In other words, it doesn’t matter at all that Smith did not want the vaccine and his parents did not consent to it; the PREP Act’s broad protections mean that they can do whatever they want. As the court noted, “Wisely or not, the plain language of the PREP Act includes claims of battery and violations of state constitutional rights within the scope of its immunity, and it therefore shields Defendants from liability for Plaintiffs’ claims.”

This sets a dangerous precedent and means that no one will be held accountable for forcibly giving children vaccines under the guise of a health emergency.

Sources for this article include:

TheVaccineReaction.org

AFN.net