Vaccine & Employer Mandates

Guest Post by Martin Armstrong

Houston Methodist Hospital is telling employees that if they refuse to take the vaccine, they will be fired. Now 117 employees have joined a lawsuit against the hospital, and they are saying that the hospital is trying to force people to take an experimental vaccine. Instead, the dictatorial hospital management is comparing it to the flu vaccine and refuses to acknowledge that there is even a difference. Quite frankly, this does not look like a hospital you should allow a family member to even enter. They obviously have no respect for human rights. How can the protests against restrictions against abortions be covered under the right of privacy but not this experimental vaccine?

Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. Understanding the foundation of Roe v Wade and why it cannot be overturned without jeopardizing our right to privacy in the face of this contrived pandemic is critical. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning the distribution of birth control to married couples, ruling that the law violated their implied right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

How do you enforce that a married couple illegally used a condom during sex? Does an FBI agency have to watch? And in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults. Again, there is no way to enforce such laws without a government agent observing every sexual act.

To overturn Roe v Wade would also mean that the government can order you to take vaccines that violate your religion and even alter your DNA. We must be very careful about overruling Roe v Wade for to do so that would result in the termination of the right to privacy would sweep through everything, and we all could then be subject to tyrannical decrees in the name of public health. Do you really want to give people like Fauci supreme power to imprison you or accept whatever he declares is in the public interest?

Bill Gates wanted to know Melinda’s IQ before he married her. Under Gates, the government could just as easily impose an IQ test and determine you are not qualified to have children — in the public interest, of course. Gates has already funded remote control birth-control by implanting chips into women. He is obsessed with population control.

I am not making up wild conspiracy theories here. The U.S. Supreme Court actually upheld the eugenics views in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., that actually ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court actually wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell,  274 U.S. 200 (1927). This case has not been overturned, but if it were challenged, then the same right to privacy from which Roe v Wade stands would come into play. Overturn that case, and a lot more tyranny will follow. The only possible way to overturn Roe v Wade must involve the due process right to life and liberty without somehow overturning the right to privacy. That can be a real Pandora’s Box.

The old saying, “Be careful what you wish for!” comes to mind. I would NOT be in favor of overturning Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court for fear that somehow we lose the right to privacy. Those that want to eliminate abortion based on their religious views are not that dissimilar to those who wanted to end slavery on the same human rights platform. Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees the Right to Privacy in explicit terms, for this is a much bigger issue than just abortion. These vaccines are showing the same argument — IF IT’S NOT YOUR BODY, IT’S NOT YOUR CHOICE.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise

15
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Iska Waran
Iska Waran

Houston Methodist Hospital, huh?

Fucking Methodists.

grace country pastor

Me 12 years ago… 🙄

Then I read the book.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran

The premise of this article is flawed. Sure the Court, in Roe, referenced Griswold and used the “right to privacy” as a foundation for the right to abortion that it discovered in 1973. That doesn’t mean that Roe couldn’t be overturned without overturning Griswold v Connecticut. The court could theoretically reverse Roe while leaving Griswold intact because they’re qualitatively different situations. Abortion arguably involves an additional DISTINCT PERSON – the one being killed. No one is killed by putting on a rubber. If you argue that a possible future person’s potential is killed by barrier contraception, that’s like saying a couple that doesn’t even have sex is killing a future baby. Killing a living person by abortion violates their 14th Amendment right to due process. Privacy doesn’t even have to enter into it.

bug

You are absolutely correct.

Privacy does not cover in any way, shape, or form, the commission of a crime.

Every murderer wants “privacy” for his actions.

Martin Armstrong is an interesting read on occasion, but he is definitely a shady character, his wave foolishness is just that, and nobody should put any faith in his prognostications, beyond astrology-like entertainment value.

Plus, he obviously wants babies to die.

sigh….

Long Time Lurker
Long Time Lurker

Ignore Martin if you wish. At the October 2019 Armstrong economics conference , he sheepishly reported that his AI system forecasted that by June 2020, the unemployment rate would be over 25%. This stuck in my craw for sure. He struggled with this forecast, as he commented that it took almost 3 years for unemployment to reach that extreme level during the great depression. He also stated that he struggled to see why this would occur, as the economy was booming (while also mentioning the overnight repo interest rate explosion) at the moment.

imo, He does not want babies to die… He does understand unchecked government powers can lead to far worse outcomes than a single individual making the (in my opinion, horrific) decision to have an abortion.

boron
boron

I agree the premise is flawed, then again, IMHO, the logic the author employs is flawed as well

Auntie Kriest
Auntie Kriest

People should let this hospital starve. Go somewhere else for medical care. THe workers should let themselves be fired continue to sue them and go on pogey (unemployment), suck the system while working in the grey economy.

Doc Adams
Doc Adams

The larger the hospital system the more inhumane their operations.

Rip
Rip

“How do you enforce that a married couple illegally used a condom during sex? Does an FBI agency have to watch? And in 1972, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried adults. Again, there is no way to enforce such laws without a government agent observing every sexual act.”

Uh, I’m pretty certain they already are! But aside from that, one thought. So they are going to have all these vaccines that are already highly dangerous and no employees to take them; what to do? Do we do the right thing and legally destroy them or do we maybe have all these sitting ducks here who must surely need a boost to protect them from the Plandemic; oh the choices….

oldtimer505
oldtimer505

No, your TV, if there is one in the room, will do just fine. Your cell phone, alexis or any other smart device is also digitally capable.

Ken31
Ken31

FFS, Martin. If we don’t murder babies, they can force us to get experimental vaccines? That is your argument?

m
m

Understanding the foundation of Roe v Wade and why it cannot be overturned without jeopardizing our right to privacy in the face of this contrived pandemic

Bullschiff argument, Martin.

Kind of like saying ‘if we have true freedom, we cannot have a society based on commonly-agreed upon principles’ –
superficially correct, but only if you define freedom narrowly as “everything is allowed as long as it doesn’t directly infringe on the freedom of others [humans.]”

Arthur
Arthur

The Supreme Court is like the Wizard of Oz. It only serves to impress those who fear its power. If you don’t want compulsory vaccination it isn’t the Supreme Court who will save you. Armstrong may be good at computer modelling but he lacks horse sense. Maybe that’s why he was locked up for contempt of court. The joke is, he doesn’t even hold the courts in contempt!

TN Patriot
TN Patriot

Being anti-abortion is about the rights of the unborn child, who also has a body and should have a choice.

I do not think Roe will ever be overturned, however, states will be allowed to more closely regulate abortions and I even expect heartbeat bills to be upheld by SCOTUS. Once there is a heartbeat, there is proof of life – It’s pure science, dontcha know.

m
m

While that’s for sure a better line of thought than ‘it’s about the rights of women’,
in the end it is none of those two:

It’s about taking responsibility, for good and for bad – or instead trying to get away with something. Or in other words it’s about moral/ethics.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading