the Proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment

[revelarts]

https://thenhf.com/now-is-the-time-s...dom-amendment/

... An American editorialist, outraged by the government's intrusive meddlingin health care, angrily contended that restrictions on freedom of medical choicewere the product of an insidious conspiracy among elites both inside and outsidethe government. He argued that state interference in the therapeutic choices ofcitizens represented an unconstitutional violation of the people's most basicrights. The writer ominously declared, "The ... duty demanded on a cargo of teain '76, was of small importance, but . .. the principle it involved . . . turned thewhole harbor of Boston into one . . . teapot." The writer warned the"demagogues" in the legislature "to remember that the blood of that tea party stilllives and runs" in their constituents' veins. He sought the support of "every man... who does not wish to be trampled in the dust and deprived of hisconstitutional liberty."'The column described above was not published in the twenty-first century,but rather appeared in an 1838 issue of the Botanico-Medical Recorder, a journalof alternative medicine. The author was almost certainly Alva Curtis, the leaderof a group of botanical practitioners known as the "Independent Thomsonians." Thomsonianism was a system of cure developed some thirty years earlier by aNew Hampshire farmer and itinerant healer named Samuel Thomson. ....

The Origins of American Health Libertarianism
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstre...pdf?sequence=2

Now Is the Time! Support the Proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment
December 20, 2022 3 Comments
By Michael LeVesque, NHF Board Member

The proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the long-awaited eleventh amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Amendment states the following:

“All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies, or Departments shall make no law or executive order that impedes the Individual’s rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. Nor shall the President, Congress, State Legislatures or Executives, Governmental Agencies, or Departments make any law or executive order that impedes the Individual’s right to medical privacy and freedom without an individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual’s condition and danger it presents.”

https://thenhf.com/now-is-the-time-s...dom-amendment/

Yea or Nay?

& why?

[fj1200]

^The pro-choice crowd is going to love that.

[AHZ]

^The pro-choice crowd is going to love that.

but the trans eugenicists won't like being unable to administer gender affirming care, aka sterilization.

[fj1200]

but the trans eugenicists won't like being unable to administer gender affirming care, aka sterilization.

That prohibition isn't in there.

[AHZ]

That prohibition isn't in there.

the state forcing medical care on minors without parental consent is covered.

[SassyLady]

I think the part that pisses me off the most is censoring alternative medicine. When my pharmacist shut down ivermectin I realized the extent of the medical tyranny we were being subjected to.

Taking away doctors license to practice because they treated their patients with alternatives to the vaccine is criminal.

[fj1200]

A woman can do whatever she wants to her body.
But not to the children she carries.

That's not the way that they will read it.

the state forcing medical care on minors without parental consent is covered.

The problem isn't the state forcing that "care." Willing and enabling parents are allowing it.

[revelarts]

^The pro-choice crowd is going to love that.

A woman can do whatever she wants to her body.
But not to the children she carries.

[Gunny]

https://thenhf.com/now-is-the-time-s...dom-amendment/

... An American editorialist, outraged by the government's intrusive meddlingin health care, angrily contended that restrictions on freedom of medical choicewere the product of an insidious conspiracy among elites both inside and outsidethe government. He argued that state interference in the therapeutic choices ofcitizens represented an unconstitutional violation of the people's most basicrights. The writer ominously declared, "The ... duty demanded on a cargo of teain '76, was of small importance, but . .. the principle it involved . . . turned thewhole harbor of Boston into one . . . teapot." The writer warned the"demagogues" in the legislature "to remember that the blood of that tea party stilllives and runs" in their constituents' veins. He sought the support of "every man... who does not wish to be trampled in the dust and deprived of hisconstitutional liberty."'The column described above was not published in the twenty-first century,but rather appeared in an 1838 issue of the Botanico-Medical Recorder, a journalof alternative medicine. The author was almost certainly Alva Curtis, the leaderof a group of botanical practitioners known as the "Independent Thomsonians." Thomsonianism was a system of cure developed some thirty years earlier by aNew Hampshire farmer and itinerant healer named Samuel Thomson. ....

The Origins of American Health Libertarianism
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstre...pdf?sequence=2

Now Is the Time! Support the Proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment
December 20, 2022 3 Comments
By Michael LeVesque, NHF Board Member

The proposed 28th Medical Freedom Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the long-awaited eleventh amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Amendment states the following:

“All people have the Right to secure their Health in the manner they choose. Congress, the President, State Legislatures and Executives, Governmental Agencies, or Departments shall make no law or executive order that impedes the Individual’s rights to informed consent nor right to medical choice nor freedom of medical choice. Nor shall the President, Congress, State Legislatures or Executives, Governmental Agencies, or Departments make any law or executive order that impedes the Individual’s right to medical privacy and freedom without an individual and specific judicial warrant supported by Oath and affirmation of necessary cause to protect Society from Harm describing the Individual’s condition and danger it presents.”

https://thenhf.com/now-is-the-time-s...dom-amendment/

Yea or Nay?

& why?

Isn't there a problem with needing to declare freedom from something government imposed that is unconstitutional to begin with? Compounding legislation, as usual

If however it is the only form of relief from unconstitutional rule, I'd be be for it.

[fj1200]

Nothing new there.

Personally I'd add a clause that made it clear that unborn children cannot be subject to drugs or medical procedures that will clearly harm the child.

Since you're already advocating something that will never pass, go for broke.

Isn't there a problem with needing to declare freedom from something government imposed that is unconstitutional to begin with? Compounding legislation, as usual

If however it is the only form of relief from unconstitutional rule, I'd be be for it.

Excellent point. These are legislative issues IMO and any constitutional amending would be misread by those who wish to misread. Equal Rights Amendment all over again.

[revelarts]

Since you're already advocating something that will never pass, go for broke.

And Roe vs Wade will never be overturned?

How about maybe helping
or just standing aside why others work please.

[AHZ]

And Roe vs Wade will never be overturned?

How about maybe helping
or just standing aside why others work please.

and epstein killed himself.

and authority figures never lie.

[fj1200]

And Roe vs Wade will never be overturned?

How about maybe helping
or just standing aside why others work please.

There's a difference with a "right" being interpreted into the existing constituional framework, and ultimately overturned, and then there's injecting a perceived health care "right" directly into the Constitution. You asked Yay? Nay? Why? I'm just answering your question.

[revelarts]

Isn't there a problem with needing to declare freedom from something government imposed that is unconstitutional to begin with? Compounding legislation, as usual

If however it is the only form of relief from unconstitutional rule, I'd be be for it.

sooo yeah.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
James Madison

When the FDA, the AMA, DofAG and congress are all influenced by big pharma.
And have by drips and drabs over the past 100 years taken bites out of our constitutional rights without push back. Seems to me there are at least 5 ways to deal with it.

•legislative & executive repeals of a lots of specific regs.
•lower &or supreme court nullification of a lot specific regs
•State's nullification of or state constitutional amendments that nullify fed medical regs (like the state marijuana laws)
•Solid block of individuals and biz that simply IGNORE the laws & regs.
•A national amendment that clears the field nullifying the whole table of unconstitutional BS.


Any amendment ... like the 2nd amendment... would have to defended well in court ...regularly.
there are no guarantees or perfect solutions.
the biggest hurdle are our corrupt legislators and the revolving door big pharma Federal bureaucrats

Well no guarantees other than DOING NOTHING guarantees we will have LESS AND LESS medical freedom.
And the gov't using medical issues as a wedge to take away freedom willy nilly.

If you've got some more ideas for dealing with it great.
the more the better.

[AHZ]

sooo yeah.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents."
James Madison

When the FDA, the AMA, DofAG and congress are all influenced by big pharma.
And have by drips and drabs over the past 100 years taken bites out of our constitutional rights without push back. Seems to me there are at least 5 ways to deal with it.

•legislative & executive repeals of a lots of specific regs.
•lower &or supreme court nullification of a lot specific regs
•State's nullification of or state constitutional amendments that nullify fed medical regs (like the state marijuana laws)
•Solid block of individuals and biz that simply IGNORE the laws & reg.
•A national amendment that clears the field nullifying the whole table of unconstitutional BS.


Any amendment ... like the 2nd amendment... would have to defended well in court ...regularly.
there are no guarantees or perfect solutions.

Well no guarantees other than DOING NOTHING guarantees we will have LESS AND LESS medical freedom.
And the gov't using medical issues as a wedge to take away freedom willy nilly.

but trump said inject bleach!

botthz siydhs!