years ago because of Dr. Tedd Koren, and his struggle and fight and eventual win over the FTC that he was talking about. Tedd has done a lot of work on behalf of the public, but my main concern is on behalf of the chiropractors, and therefore their patients. He’s done work with the International Chiropractors Association, and he comes … I just recently heard him talk about this lawsuit, and he brought a whole different perspective. Rather than even freedom of choice or informed consent or anything else, but the tack that they’re taking in California to put an end to this mandatory law. I want to just introduce you Jim, welcome you, and see if you can talk about that a little bit before I go on and introduce Robert to the audience. Thank you very much, Stu. I appreciate your introduction. I will focus directly to the issue that you alluded to. Our argument in the lawsuit is that California has a constitutional guaranteed right to education, and the idea that any state policy, whatever it might be, would be enforced by saying students must comply with this policy, or they cannot go to school. In this instance, the vaccine mandatory law says you can’t go to school ever at all in a public school or a private school. You can home school. That’s what they say is the option that fulfills their responsibility. We’re arguing that the judge in the case needs to apply a strict scrutiny standard to determine whether that kind of extinguishing of the educational right of the students actually passes constitutional muster. That’s the focus of our lawsuit. We had a hearing in the Southern District of California Federal Court, San Diego on the 12th of August. At the end of that hearing, the judge said he would come out with a formal opinion and a ruling, not the following week, but the week after that, which is this week. Sometime between Monday morning and Friday evening of this week, we should be hearing from the judge as to what his position is on whether the kids can go to school while this whole big debate is carried out. Either way, whether he endorses the preliminary injunction and the kids get to go to school, or he doesn’t and the kids have to stay out of school, there will be a long, involved legal process in which every aspect of SB 277 is carefully presented to the court by both sides, and the judge will rule on all of the aspects of that law. It’s very important to understand that what is being focused on is a very narrow fact. Senate Bill 277 eliminated the personal belief exemption. It made it impossible for anybody to avoid vaccination, any children to avoid vaccination unless it was through a doctor’s letter. That fact makes California only the third state to have such a prohibition, and it is the first state to create such a prohibition by removing a personal belief exemption by legislation. This is a unique case. It creates really a watershed for how we go forward. One of the concerns is that I have and the groups I work with have, is that once this kind of a law is declared constitutional, if it is, we’re working very diligently to ensure that it isn’t, but then we open up a Pandora’s Box to all kinds, at a minimum, of drugging of children.
Jim Turner:
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online