Users Online Now:
2,029
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,848,474
Pageviews Today:
2,731,826
Threads Today:
741
Posts Today:
15,538
10:21 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Forced Vax in South Carolina - Law since 1905 - Update in OP
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 78446897:MV80Mzg2NTU1Xzc5ODUwOTQyX0REMjgxNUVG] [quote:Anonymous Coward 78446897:MV80Mzg2NTU1Xzc5ODUwNjAzX0M1MUZBNzQw] [quote:Anonymous Coward 40203040:MV80Mzg2NTU1Xzc5ODUwNDkxX0Y5NTdBOTRC] [quote:Anonymous Coward 78446897:MV80Mzg2NTU1Xzc5ODUwMzUxXzUwQURGMEMy] [quote:Anonymous Coward 40203040:MV80Mzg2NTU1Xzc5ODUwMjk5X0YzMDE1RENC] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ It’s already passed Supreme Court ruling years ago. [/quote] And that was overturned by Nuremberg. [/quote] I understand that in essence it really is experimentation, but the argument will stand that it is not so those codes do not apply. [/quote] It applies to any 'medical procedure'. Since there is no 'sure thing' in medicine, it's all considered 'experimental'. It absolutely applies. [/quote] Besides, it was further codified by the [b]Declaration of Helsinki:[/b] https://www.imarcresearch.com/blog/bid/361861/the-declaration-of-helsinki-1964 The Declaration of Helsinki also marked the arrival of “clinical research,” a field that was previously referred to as ‘Human Experimentation’ in the Nuremberg Code. Furthermore, it introduced a caveat to the consideration of the process for informed consent as an ‘essential’ portion of research, as stated in the Nuremberg Code; according to the Declaration of Helsinki, physicians would be asked to obtain consent ‘if at all possible’ and could be allowed to omit a traditional informed consent form when a legally authorized representative is available. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ [b]Unproven Interventions[/b] in Clinical Practice 37. In the [b]treatment [/b]of an individual [b]patient[/b], where proven interventions do not exist or other known interventions have been ineffective, the physician, after seeking expert advice, [b]with informed consent[/b] from the patient or a legally authorised representative, may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. This intervention should subsequently be made the object of research, designed to evaluate its safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information must be recorded and, where appropriate, made publicly available. Even these vaccine makers essentially state the Caveat that these vaccines 'may not work'. They are completely unproven. Nurenberg and Helsinki apply. [/quote]
Original Message
SECTION 44-29-50. Violation of regulation relating to vaccination, screening, or immunization.
Any person who shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any regulation of the Department of Health and Environmental Control relating to vaccination, screening or immunization shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days.
HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 32-578; 1952 Code Section 32-578; 1942 Code Section 5042; 1932 Code Section 1503; Cr. C. '22 Section 451; Cr. C. '12 Section 441; 1905 (24) 871; 1972 (57) 2523.
[
link to www.scstatehouse.gov (secure)
]
I live in SC - this is terrifying.
***Update***
It appears this has been law since 1905, never used, but still law. The SC Senator returned my concerned call at 9:15pm Monday night and agreed that it was scary. He was a nice young man (getting old is so odd) and explained (if I understood correctly) it would be easier to challenge the law if the state ever tried to us it, then it would be to go in and rewrite the law. He didn’t think SC would attempt to use it as the backlash would be overwhelming.
But yes, it’s law and has been for 115 years.
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>