Orwellian New Hampshire Medical Freedom Act Reaffirm Language Allowing Forced Vaccination/Quarantine

Read the Fine Print:


Subscribe to the Unite4Truth Blog on the Community Blogger Homepage HERE


Recommended Companion Article:


FL Governor Signs Legislation Allowing Forced Medical Treatment, Coerce Vaccination Compliance


The Story:


New Hampshire's H220 drafts language its authors claim protects medical freedom in regards to immunization status but reaffirms existing law that allows the Health Commissioner to quarantine, isolate, vaccinate, and otherwise forcibly treat individuals on the basis of 'reasonable SUSPICION' of a citizen being infected with a communicable disease. The bill also cedes to existing law for forced vaccine mandates for disabled, mentally ill, prison and nursing home populations. It does not limit the ability of private institutions or businesses to medically discriminate based on vaccine status.


Here is the text and summary of the bill section dealing with state authority to limit access to state property and facilities on the grounds of vaccine status:


"1 New Section: Communicable Disease: Medical Freedom in Immunizations.

Amend RSA 141-C by inserting after section 1 the following new section:

141-C:1-a Medical Freedom in Immunizations.

I. Every person has the natural, essential, and inherent right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion by government to accept an immunization. Accordingly, no person may be compelled to receive an immunization for COVID-19 in order to secure, receive, or access any public facility, any public benefit, or any public service from the state of New Hampshire, or any political subdivision thereof, including but not limited to counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, school administrative units, or quasi-public entities".


The bill drafts text that ostensibly limits the ability of the state to block access of individuals to public and state facility or land based on vaccination status. However, the bill reaffirms existing law which provides acting government health officials the ability to completely circumvent the above text, if the state deems or even SUSPECTS an individual is contagious with a communicable disease. And, certain individuals are afforded no protection at all.


Exemptions are as follows as documented in paragraph II:


"II. Paragraph I shall not:

(a) Limit the commissioner's authority to order treatment pursuant to RSA 141-C:15 or RSA 141-C:18, nor to order quarantine pursuant to RSA 141-C:11 or RSA 141-C:18.


141-C:15 Treatment, Care of Sick; Costs. –

I. Any person infected with a communicable disease, or reasonably suspected of being infected with a communicable disease, and whose continued presence among the citizenry poses a significant threat to health and life, shall be ordered by the commissioner under RSA 141-C:11, to report to a health care provider or health care facility to undergo such treatment and care as the commissioner may deem necessary to eliminate the threat. The commissioner shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, necessary to issue and carry out such orders for treatment and to restrict and control communicable disease through treatment"


II. If the person subject to the order cannot be removed to a health care provider or to a health care facility for treatment without danger to his life or to the citizenry, the commissioner shall impose isolation or quarantine under RSA 141-C:11 and shall arrange for treatment and care as necessary to mitigate the threat".


141-C:11 Isolation and Quarantine.

I. Whenever it is necessary to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases within this state or from another state, or to restrict such diseases if introduced, and when such communicable diseases pose a substantial threat to the health and life of the citizenry, the commissioner shall establish isolation or quarantine for persons who are cases or carriers, or suspected cases or carriers of communicable diseases, and establish quarantine for commodities, conveyances, baggage and cargo that are carriers or suspected carriers of the communicable diseases by written order prepared in accordance with RSA 141-C:12. Such isolation or quarantine shall be by the least restrictive means necessary to protect the citizenry which, in the case of an individual, shall be at a place of his or her choosing unless the commissioner determines such place to be impractical or unlikely to adequately protect the public health. The commissioner shall adopt such rules regarding the establishment, maintenance and lifting of isolation and quarantine as the commissioner may deem best for protecting the health of the public".


The language here is broad, and allows forced medical treatment, isolation, quarantine and vaccination on 'reasonable suspicion' of infection with a contagious disease with no defining criteria for what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Given that the entirety of American society was placed under lock-downs for months on the basis of a unsubstantiated theory of asymptomatic transmission which is not supported by actual science (and documented to have arisen due to faulty tests), and healthy individuals are now routinely ordered to follow measures that assume healthy persons are contagious vectors of disease, this exception easily may be utilized to bypass any limitation to government's authority imposed in paragraph 1.


The bill language cites exemption to 141-C:18, text will instills the state power to forcibly detain, treat, isolate, and quarantine individuals on the basis of SUSPECTED exposure to sexually transmitted disease:


141-C:18 Sexually Transmitted Disease. –

I. The commissioner may request the examination, and order isolation, quarantine, and treatment of any person reasonably suspected of having been exposed to or of exposing another person or persons to a sexually transmitted disease. Any order of treatment issued under this paragraph shall be in accordance with RSA 141-C:11, RSA 141-C:12, and RSA 141-C:15.

II. Any minor 14 years of age or older may voluntarily submit himself to medical diagnosis and treatment for a sexually transmitted disease and a licensed physician may diagnose, treat or prescribe for the treatment of a sexually transmitted disease in a minor 14 years of age or older, without the knowledge or consent of the parent or legal guardian of such minor".


The bill continues:


III. The commissioner shall assist indigent persons who are infected with tuberculosis and supply them with anti-tuberculosis drugs for treatment and preventative therapy, chest x-rays, and such physical examinations as necessary to monitor the course of treatment and therapy.


IV. The cost of treatment and care, except treatment provided under RSA 141-C:15, III, and physical examinations under RSA 141-C:9 and RSA 141-C:18, shall be a cost to the person, or his parent or guardian, or, if such person is indigent, from such public funds available for such purposes. Costs of physical examinations and treatment and care provided to the operator, passengers and crew of conveyances who are, or might have been, infected by means of the conveyance, shall be a cost to the owner, consignee or assignee of the conveyance.

V. The cost for maintenance of quarantine for commodities, conveyances, cargo and baggage, and for the decontamination of commodities, conveyances, cargos and baggage, shall be a cost to the owner, consignee or assignee of the commodity or conveyance.

VI. When an individual subject to an order for treatment by the commissioner refuses to undergo such ordered treatment, the commissioner may issue a complaint, which shall be sworn to before a justice of the peace. Such complaint shall set forth the reasons for the order imposing treatment, the nature of the treatment to be provided, and the place or facility where the treatment shall be provided. Upon being presented with such an order, any law enforcement officer shall take such individual into custody and transport the individual to the place or facility where the treatment is to be provided.

Source. 1986, 198:21. 1995, 310:183. 2002, 258:17, eff. July 1, 2002"

.

The existing law reaffirmed and ceded to in this bill states individuals are responsible for paying for treatments they may not wish to receive, and if individual refuses to comply with order, police detainment may be instituted if commissioner issue complaint to justice of the peace Justice of the peace require no legal training, they are not judges. This means the commissioner can write his own complaint and there is no legal hearing required or review to enact the order, only that the complaint document is sworn by the complainant in front of a justice of the peace.


The bill continues:


(b) Supersede the requirement for vaccination as a prerequisite for admission to a school or child care agency pursuant to RSA 141-C:20-a, II.


Children maybe mandated by the state to vaccinate to attend school or childcare.


(c) Supersede the involuntary emergency admission process pursuant to RSA 135-C:27-33; the revocation of conditional discharge process under RSA 135-C:51; or involuntary treatment of patients compliant with RSA 135-C:57, III.

(d) Limit treatment authorized by a guardian over a person; or short term treatment of a personal safety emergency declared by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner in a psychiatric care setting, or authorized by a surrogate decision maker or durable power of attorney for health care delegated by the person while competent to make decisions for them during periods when they are not competent, pursuant to RSA 137-J.


The above sections refer to involuntary detainment measures for mental health crisis, the text allows medical authorities or family members the right to enact treatment protocols if individual is deemed incompetent . This one is a hornets nest. On what basis should a person undergoing a mental health crisis ever be subject to forced vaccinations?


(e) Apply to county nursing homes, the New Hampshire state hospital, or any other medical facility or provider operated by the state of New Hampshire or any political subdivision identified in paragraph I.


Paragraph 1 does not apply to individuals in nursing homes, state hospitals, medical facilities. These entities may create their own mandates and rules for vaccination.

III. The department of corrections may mandate medical treatment or immunization for inmates when a direct threat exists as defined in 28 CFR section 36.208.

Prisoners may be mandated to vaccinated if the state seems a direct medical threat.


The bill also establishes a committee to establish committee on vaccine policy, the citizens of New Hampshire have the potential to flag the significant concerns raised in the above text of existing law and advocate to change language that would further limit government power and establish much stricter and defined guidelines for government health interventions.


Full test of bill may be viewed here.


Timothy B Lang, New Hampshire representative sponsor of the above bill was contacted for this article. When questioned about the loopholes the current language of the bill provides for state officials to bypass the bill's intended restriction, he stated that it was existing law and that the bill requires 'reasonable suspicion' to enact mandated treatments, vaccination, and quarantines against the will of individuals. He also stated that the bill provides language to form a committee to further examine immunization policy.


This bill language allows government officials to super cede the language inserted to protect citizens against discrimination due to vaccine status and provides no significant protection against quarantine, forced vaccination, forced medical treatments, if the State deems the person a medical threat on no defined criteria what so ever. This bill does not substantively limit government powers to enact measures which violate human rights and dignity and cedes to authoritarian and unconstitutional language which should be challenged in a court of law.


Representative Lang, in a recent social media post referred to existing bill text allowing for draconian state powers as a 'few limited exceptions'. This is a gross dismissal of language that provides the State the power to enact broad medical interventions on 'reasonable suspicion'. The limitations are not few or limited,. New Hampshire and the federal government has demonstrated through the past year's Covid-19 policies implementation 'reasonable suspicion' is a loop hole term that allows governments to enact sweeping and unscientific health directives in healthy individuals and populations Reasonable suspicion is a term shown through government's real world application to equate to whatever policymakers determine REGARDLESS of real world threat.


The abuses the US government has enacted or claims to power to enact on 'perceived threat' are too numerous to cite in this post (wmds in Iraq comes to mind).


The United States is currently employing Covid-19 PCR tests which are non specific to Covid-19 and admitted on page 40 of CDC guidelines for Emergency Use of the testings that a positive test result does not mean symptom presentation or contagion with Sars CoV2, the virus attributed to cause symptoms of Covid-19.


The government is currently utilizing tests that the CDC openly admits in their own testing guidelines does not equate to actual infection and contagion risk with Sars CoV2 infection. Further, it is extensively documented that the FDA set this testing at rates that resulted in majority false positives by default of test setting, and continues to recommend faulty setting cycle threshold rates even after Dr Anthony Fauci exposed the issue in July 2020.


It is utterly Orwellian to title this bill as a 'Medical Freedom Act'. Lawmakers serious about protection of medical freedoms would challenge the existing law in court, and demand end to all existing policies which not only restrict civil rights and basic human freedoms, but advance individual and public health harm.


Subscribe to the Unite4Truth Blog on the Community Blogger Homepage HERE




Vera Sharav, Holocaust Survivor Speaks On Current Government Covid-19 Policy:




1,150 views1 comment