South Dakota

Will there be a medical refugee migration to South Dakota?
Who owns your body?

A growing number of legislators in South Dakota believe you do.

They have introduced a bill to not only end vaccine mandates in the state, but all future medical mandates that my be introduced in generations to come.

One hundred and fifteen years ago this month, the US Supreme Court made a decision that because there was a deadly smallpox epidemic, the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts was allowed to charge a pastor five dollars to opt out of a city wide vaccine mandate. The law didn't apply to children.

That precedent has been the basis for the mandate of dozens of now liability-free vaccines for children and adults, where no epidemic (or even one case) exists, at the costs of thousands, or even hundred of thousands, per year to opt out. It is even the basis on which the Supreme Court ruled that women can be force sterilized, for the good of themselves and society, of course.

Bad precedent, plus a century, has resulted in the legalization of actual war crimes.

The current vaccine mandate enforcement drive by Merck and Friends has driven our community, and those who never questioned vaccines before now, back to a basic question at hand here.

WHO OWNS YOUR BODY?

The knee jerk reaction, and normal human response for Americans is, "I do."

But that is not what most governments believe. Even under our Constitution of individual liberties, governments strive to control even your medical choices, and if they can't, they will find a reason to justify it, and the means to carry out their will.

In 21st century America, there are no deadly epidemics of communicable disease, despite the fact that we are subject to constant fear campaigns that one is coming. In fact no such event has happened in my lifetime. If the fear mongers want to scare you into fearing deadly epidemics, they have to go back more than a hundred years. So the circumstances for the justification of the government's actions in Jacobson v. Massachusetts exist only in the history books.

So in this age of medical tech, including vaccines, that most people want, why do mandates still exist? And if Jacobson can justify the sexual mutilation of women, then what else can it justify as medical technology progresses over the next century and beyond?

What new medical interventions and body tech will The Gates Foundation invent and convince (bribe) governments and NGOs to force people into utilizing? And where will the battle to end coerced "medical care" begin.

I submit to you that it has begun in South Dakota. Today.

South Dakota House Majority Leader, Representative Lee Qualm (R), has introduced HB 1235 An Act to Revise Provisions Regarding Immunizations.

The bill repeals ALL vaccine mandates in the State.

South Dakota would be the first US state to have no vaccine mandates at all, joining other governments like the UK, Japan and Canada, in uncoerced vaccine decision making.

But the bill goes even further. IT ENDS MEDICAL MANDATES ALL TOGETHER. It adds new law that reads:
Section 5. That a NEW SECTION be added:

334-22-6.1. Discrimination-Immunization

Every person has the inalienable right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion that the person accepts any medical intervention, including immunization. No person may be discriminated against for refusal to accept an unwanted medical intervention, including immunization.
The State of South Dakota would function under the truth that YOU OWN YOUR BODY, and codifies into law that YOU make our own medical decisions. And no one can coerce your choices or discriminate against you because of them.

This is the real conversation that we should be having now. Begging the government not to take away our right to bodily integrity, or trying to claw back religious and philosophical exemptions that give us "loopholes" that "allow" us to make our own decisions about our own bodies is becoming an outdated conversation that is based on a lie. The lie that we have no right to bodily integrity in the first place, and government is doing us a favor by giving us even a medical exemption.

Cambridge, and the turn of the 20th century courts didn't care that Pastor Jacobson protested the violation of his body (and his bank account) based on his arguments that vaccines were not safe, that both he and his son had previous vaccine reactions (Jacobson himself was injured in childhood) and they violated his religious conscience. SCOTUS didn't care that Carrie Buck was a woman of sound mind who wanted to retain her ability to have children after she was raped and impregnated by a family member.

They declared her intellectually disabled, an "imbecile," even though there was never any evidence that she had any disability. They then forced her to be sterilized.

"Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization"

The state did, of course, have a stated compelling interest, as they always do, when they seek to violate the civil rights of Americans. This was it:
in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
And that justification was based on the existence of vaccine mandates.

This is dead thinking. It is unconscionable in the 21st century that such logic is allowed to stand in the law books, but Buck v. Bell is still law, as Jacobson is still law.

South Dakota will now consider the rejection of the lie that you do not own your body, the laws that can allow the state to do what it wants with your body.

It is time for America to decide who owns a person's medical choices. Is it the state, or the person in the body who must live (or die) with the consequences of those medical choices?

I urge you to change the conversation in your state. Take the SD bill to your legislators, tell them about Henning Jacobson and Carrie Buck, and ask them who they think owns your medical choices.

Because if governments have the right to coerce vaccination for Henning Jacobson, they also have the right to remove Carrie Buck's reproductive organs. And yours.

Who owns your body?