CONNECTICUT SAYS: "TOTS MUST GET SHOTS!" to go to school

I want to set the record straight on the recent headlines from Connecticut regarding the elimination of religious exemptions for children in public and private schools. Yes, Connecticut has joined the ranks of California, New York, Maine, Mississippi, and West Virginia (of all places) in stripping away your child's right—or your right as a parent—to protect your child from becoming a human pincushion based on religious grounds.

But let me be clear: this case isn't over yet. I want to break it down for you and share the deeply troubling list of vaccines these innocent children are required to be injected with before they can even attend preschool. It's disturbing, and these recommendations come straight from the CDC.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear a case challenging Connecticut's removal of the religious exemption. This decision led many to believe the fight was over, but it isn't. The Supreme Court declined because the case has not yet been fully ruled on by the lower courts. A mother in Connecticut filed this lawsuit against the governor, asserting her right to opt out of vaccinations for her child based on religious beliefs.

This case is still active in the Superior Court of Connecticut. Although the Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed five of the six counts, one remains to be heard. A lower court will decide whether the law violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So, remember, it ain't over till it's over.

If anyone gets the absurd lengths governments go to in order to delay and obstruct justice, it's me. After wrestling with my county in court for a couple of years, I've seen firsthand just how far they’ll go to dodge accountability.

The attorney general for the state of Connecticut, William Tong, has been vocal about the rulings. Tong celebrated the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision to dismiss five of the charges. He argues that eliminating the religious exemption is in the best interest of public health, despite the obvious contradictions and violations of both the Connecticut and United States Constitutions.

“Vaccines save lives, school vaccine requirements remain in effect, and we are very confident in our position” Tong said in a statement. “This merely dismisses most aspects of the challenge while allowing plaintiffs to continue to press one remaining part of their case in state court, where we will aggressively defend the state’s necessary and lawful actions to protect public health.”

After some research, I found out that Tong's parents emigrated from Taiwan and Communist China… just saying.

The plaintiffs argued that eliminating religious exemptions violates both the Connecticut and United States Constitutions and Connecticut's Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA).

Article I, Section 3 of the Connecticut Constitution reads as follows:

The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in the state; provided, that the right hereby declared and established, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

Article VII reads as follows:

It being the right of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and to render that worship in a mode consistent with the dictates of their consciences, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, nor be classed or associated with, any congregation, church or religious association. No preference shall be given by law to any religious society or denomination in the state. Each shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights and privileges, and may support and maintain the ministers or teachers of its society or denomination, and may build and repair houses for public worship.

The RFRA states that individuals have the right to worship as they wish, free from government interference, unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest. This "compelling interest" clause is where the trouble begins.

“Our case has always centered around Connecticut’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act and our firm belief that the removal of the religious exemption is in clear violation thereof,” the attorney representing the plaintiffs said in a statement. “This decision is a victory for our plaintiffs and a victory for religious freedom in Connecticut and we look forward to pressing ahead with our injunction motion so that we can get these disenfranchised children back to school while we await our trial.”

The RFRA sounds good in theory but has loopholes that allow the government to override religious freedoms under the guise of compelling interest.

I think that's a bit of a red herring, and you might think, “Peggy, what’s wrong with you? It sounds great!” Well, no. Here’s why.

The wording in this law, which was modeled on the U.S. federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, sounds great at first. It starts with, “Everyone has the right to worship as they desire, and the government shouldn’t interfere.” But then it goes on to say, “Except if the government has a compelling interest.” Excuse me? There is no “except” when it comes to our rights. So, I don’t care for this law. It’s incrementalism at its finest! The law says the government can trample on your religious beliefs if it can prove it’s for a compelling interest and done in the least restrictive means possible.

That’s exactly what Connecticut is saying—due to public health and safety, all children have to become human pincushions.

In Connecticut, as in other states that illegally eliminated religious exemptions, medical exemptions are still allowed. This means a child can be exempt from vaccinations if a medical professional deems it necessary. However, children exempted for religious reasons are not given the same consideration, which is blatant discrimination.

So for students this fall, they are going to be required fulfill this illegal and unethical requirement and not be permitted exemptions for religious reasons. Let’s keep in mind, medical exemptions are still available. And apparently, some families may have one child who is exempt because they’re “grandfathered in” and another child who is now about to enter school, but will not be allowed the same exemption as their sibling.

Be on the look out for wording that says “the schools are required to maintain immunization records for children.” This requirement does not necessarily mean the school must “enforce” vaccinations, especially for those claiming religious exemptions.

The Disturbing Vaccine Schedule

Let's take a look at the vaccination requirements for children in Connecticut:

By preschool, children must receive up to 20 vaccinations, including three doses of hepatitis B. This is concerning, especially considering the primary risk factors for hepatitis B, such as unprotected sex, sharing needles, and exposure to infected blood, are irrelevant to infants and children.

There need to be 20 jabs to get into preschool. Do you think this is okay? If it works, why would your child need shots to protect another with shots? It's like wearing a raincoat to keep someone else from getting wet. It doesn’t make sense and never will.

This incessant push by certain groups to test these childhood vaccines against a placebo only promotes more vaccination. The pharmaceutical companies, like Granny Gates and his ilk, get millions for vaccine testing. Why promote this?

I’ve spoken about this at length previously here, here, and here.

When we look at all these vaccines required for public and even private school, the hypocrisy of allowing medical exemptions but not religious ones is glaring. I would focus on finding superior learning alternatives for my child. There are plenty of options. Do an internet search to find learning groups in your area and get connected with other parents who have found a better way. There’s always another way, and I know you can find it.

So, while the headlines say the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the removal of religious exemptions, that’s not true. The case hasn’t even been settled in the lower court. Let’s keep watching, learning, listening, and marching this all the way to heaven.