Ok, so we make that law on the federal level. You as a government can't perform risky medical procedures on children without parental consent. Doesn't seem like a hard law to make. Then all you have to present in court is that the medical procedure does have risk, that a government employee or elected official performed it or had it performed, and that the parents did not give consent. Wam, bam, potential sentence of hanging.
Ok, so we make that law on the federal level.
You're assuming that legislators at the Federal level wouldn't go along with the forced vaccination of children.
Ok, so we make that law on the federal level.
We who? Because let me tell ya man, we aren't in charge of anything. Because if we were things wouldn't get this bad.
They would label such a law as forbidding children from having access to abortions and a whole bunch of people would bandwagon around 'the right to choose' and also 'keep people from suppressing CSA/Incest' to save family face. Maybe you'd get further with 'parents must consent to healthcare mandated by the state.'
The lawmakers won't intentionally make laws that will put themselves in jeopardy. And even if they were somehow guilty, they'll only get a slap on the wrist. And even in the slim chance they do get rightfully prosecuted, you are still feeding the legal system. Just something to think about.
we likely already have a law that forbids that, its not like it would matter though, until the average person makes these people scared they will continue.
You as a government can't perform risky medical procedures on children
without parental consent.
ftfy
(post is archived)