exemption, so these are constitutionally protected personal values. I have found over the years of doing this kind of litigation, that the vehicle for this kind of litigation is the federal civil rights statute. It’s colloquially called Section 1983. It is a statute that allows a civil action against state actors who act in a way as to deprive citizens of the rights, privileges and immunities that are guaranteed by the constitution. Our case follows that template that I used successfully in religious freedom litigation. Our case is brought under Section 1983. It’s brought under the federal declaratory judgment statute, and so this federal court had jurisdiction over the controversy and over the state actors. Actually the state of California itself is immune from suit in federal court under the eleventh amendment, but we have a first amendment claim that protects the conscientious component of objection to vaccination. We have a fourteenth amendment complaint that protects the fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, due process, equal protection of the law, et cetera. That the fourteenth amendment, of course, underlies the abortion case law, and I have always just argued that the states should not be allowed to have a bigger stick to make you vaccinate than it has to prevent abortion. This big bundle of rights is recognized in federal case law, a great amount of federal case law that developed in the 20th century, and stands in stark contrast to the vaccine case law which essentially is a single case from 1905. That’s Jacobson versus Massachusetts. I’m sure you’ve all heard of it. We believe that where the state can draw the line about preventing people from refusing vaccination is where there is a compelling immediate emergency where vaccination is the only thing that will stop the emergency. There's a dearth of case law in the United States where, as Jim Turner stated, we’re going to have to delve into that thicket with this federal court, and we like the attention that this federal judge is paying to this case. It can be a long haul. We are defending education at the outset because it’s a fundamental right in California. We’re not making it about vaccines. We’re making it about freedom. Actually if it delves into vaccines, we think we know more about vaccines than they know about vaccines, and we’re [crosstalk 00:45:11]. I’m confident that that … Robert, I appreciate that, and you brought up something that triggered what was said earlier. One of the components is that this leads to forced drugging of our children, but then it goes on to the adults. This is much bigger than the issue that is taking place in California, but if we don’t address California, we’re certainly going to have a longer road to address it everywhere else it pops up. I had a number of purposes for this show, and one of them is to talk about, which we’re going to do next, how to actually communicate this with other doctors. I also have the purpose of helping raise awareness and raise funds from those doctors that are watching this show. That this is an important issue to you personally, that
Dr. Hoffman:
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online