Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

As many around the world know, US Illinois is a
shit state whose shit precedents unfortunately
affect a lot of people. Now their worthless politicians
and actors are trying to set another shit precedent against
your right to conscientiously object to being forced to do anything.



A Blood-Boiling Performance By Illinois Lawmakers To Ensure Punishment
Of Vax Mandate Resisters

https://wirepoints.org/a-blood-boiling-performance-by-illinois-lawmakers-to-ensure-punishment-of-vax-mandate-resisters-wirepoints/

https://twitter.com/SikhForTruth/status/1454093966715019282
“In the entire history of mankind there has never been a political
elite sincerely concerned about the wellbeing of regular people. What
makes any of us think that it is different now. - Christine Anderson
European Parliament.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFQ74HG45z8
https://www.newsweek.com/how-fauci-fooled-america-opinion-1643839
https://wirepoints.org/the-big-new-question-with-vaccines-failing-to-reduce-covid-spread-whats-the-justification-for-mandates-wirepoints/

Unless you want your blood to boil, do not watch the video from last
week of supporters of a bill to amend Illinois’ Health Care Right of
Conscience Act (HCRCA). Dishonesty, despotism and undisguised
ignorance were on full display in a move to assure compliance with
vaccine and other COVID mandates.

Passed in 1977, HCRCA has been a point of distinction in which
Illinois can take pride. It prohibits discrimination against anybody
who chooses not to receive any particular form of health care services
that are contrary to his or her conscience.

Predictably, HCRCA is being used by those who are at risk of losing
their jobs because of their opposition to COVID vax mandates, and
action in the courts has been going their way. Several Illinois courts
have provided temporary relief against the mandates pending full
hearings and appeals.

That makes Gov. JB Pritzker and his allies in the General Assembly
unhappy. They want mandate resisters punished. HCRCA is getting in the
way of that, so they want it amended.

They turned to Rep. Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston) to carry their bill,
which she sponsored, to strip the right to object to COVID vax
mandates under HCRCA.

Big mistake.

Gabel is personification of that confluence of dishonesty, despotism
and undisguised ignorance, which we have documented before in the
stories linked below. Some other supporters were guilty of some of the
same in how they defended the bill.

To fully appreciate how bad their performance was, you really need to
watch at least part of the video linked here of the House debtate,
particularly Gabel’s answers to questions. It’s readily apparent that
she has no interest in honestly describing her bill, and no
understanding of what existing law says, where the science on COVID
stands and how legislative and judicial processes work.

Watch the video if you can, but here are a few highlights:

The first and most obvious question came from Rep. Adam Neimberg
(R-Tuetopolis), who asks what recourse would remain, if the bill
becomes law, for those whose consciences say no vax.

Robyn Gabel during one of the many times she needed help answering
simple questions about the bill she sponsored.

But Gabel can’t even provide her own answer on that. She turns to an
aide for an answer, as she does repeatedly throughout the hearing, and
ends up simply re-reading something from her opening statement, which
does not answer the question.

Watch how often she needs help even on the simplest questions, and she
often seems unable to repeat what her aid tells her in an intelligible
fashion.

Gabel repeatedly says her bill “merely clarifies the well-established
intent of the original law.”

What? How does a legislature clarify the intent of a legislature from
decades earlier? It can’t. The original intent is what it is. The
purpose of the amendment is obviously to change the law. It’s just
that it’s supporters don’t have the courage to say that directly. In
fact Gabel expressly says the bill is not changing existing law. Of
course it is.

Far more importantly, legislative intent means nothing when a law’s
words are clear. And both a federal court and state court have said
that the relevant parts of HCRCA are clear, leaving nothing to intent.
Rep. Deanne Mazzochi (R-Westmont) addressed that directly with Gabel
starting at about the 19.00 mark. Gabel says she has no knowledge of
that.

HCRCA was intended, Gabel says, only to be about abortion,
contraceptives and the like. Everybody knows that now “with
certainty.” And the law is being “intentionally distorted” so people
can “thumb their noses” at the vax, she says. Anybody who claims
otherwise is engaging in the spread of misinformation, she says.

No, there is nothing in HCRCA limiting it to abortion and other family
planning matters. The law is what the courts say it is, not what Gabel
or anybody else wants, and the courts have said it means what it says.

It says, in essence, that it is unlawful to discriminate in any manner
because of somebody’s conscientious refusal to participate in any way
in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her
conscience. The full text of the relevant portion is reproduced below.

Gabel says at one point, in questioning from Mazzochi, that HCRCA is
not supposed to apply to vax mandates because the vax is “not in a
healthcare setting.” That’s just too preposterous to warrant a
response.

Gabel says repeatedly that federal remedies remain, and her bill
expressly says they do. That’s just show. Of course they do. The
problem is that the federal law is far more restrictive and difficult
to use, which is why the Pritzker Administration has targeted the
Illinois law.

At about the 50.00 mark, Rep. Keith Wheeler (R-North Aurora) asks
about the amendment being worded so broadly that any mandate could be
imposed by an employer, no matter how extreme, unfounded or
irrational, still leaving the employee with no recourse.

Gabel says that’s not an issue because there is no disagreement about
proper steps to mitigate COVID.

Is she entirely unaware of the intense debate going on among medical
experts and the huge differences across nations in the mitigations
they decided will work? Among those open issues are mask mandates,
whether those with prior infection need vaccination, who needs
boosters, whether children need vaccinations and much, much more. How
completely uninformed must one be to be oblivious to those open
issues.

Most importantly, those issues include the growing evidence and
scientific opinion that vaccinated people spread the virus about as
much as the unvaccinated, which destroys the rationale for mandates.

As for the current courts ruling in favor of those objecting to mask
mandates, that’s just “a few courts bastardizing” the intent of the
bill, Gabel says. The same charge was made by at least one other bill
supporter on the tape. I suspect that won’t help them in those cases,
which are ongoing.

Most fundamentally, Gabel repeatedly says her amendment does not take
away any right. That’s fundamentally dishonest because, as of now,
people do have a right to use HCRCA respecting COVID and vaccines for
it. We do not yet know what courts will ultimately say about that
right, but Gabel is simply wishing away a right that is for the courts
to further define.

*  *  *
All is not lost.

First, though the bill has now passed both the House and Senate,
enough lawmakers in both parties voted against it to bar immediate
effect. That means the effective date will be June 1, 2022.

Second, gamesmanship by the sponsors may backfire on them. The bill
initially included examples of what punishments would be permissible
for those who refused vax and other COVID mandates. Those examples
included terminating employment and excluding individuals from a
school or a place of employment. But those examples were later deleted
as a cosmetic attempt to make the bill look more palatable. It’s
conceivable that the deletion would be interpreted to mean that those
actions are not permissible under bill as finalized.

Finally, and most importantly, step back and look beyond the conduct
of Illinois lawmakers and the details of their wording. Principles far
more important are at issue. Listen to recent words of Christine
Anderson, a German member of the European Parliament.

You may not agree with her decision not to be vaccinated or her views
on that. I am among the vaccinated. But this is about the rights of
those who choose otherwise, and Anderson’s broader message is
timeless. A video of her is here.

    Must Watch Very Powerful.

    “In the entire history of mankind there has never been a political
elite sincerely concerned about the wellbeing of regular people. What
makes any of us think that it is different now. - Christine Anderson
European Parliament.” pic.twitter.com/oSVYzg81p5
    — 'Sikh For Truth'. (@SikhForTruth) October 29, 2021

These were among her comments:

    Always question everything any government does or does not do.
Always look for ulterior motives. And always ask cui bono?, who
benefits?

    Whenever a political elite pushes an agenda this hard, and resort
to extortion and manipulation to get their way, you can almost always
be sure your benefit is definitely not what they had at heart.

    As far as I’m concerned, I will not be vaccinated with anything
that has not been properly vetted and tested and has shown no sound
scientific evidence that the benefits outweigh the disease itself in
possible long-term side effects, which to this day we don’t know
anything about.

    I will not be reduced to a mere guinea pig by getting vaccinated
with an experimental drug, and I will most assuredly not get
vaccinated because my government tells me to and promises, in return,
I will be granted freedom.

    Let’s be clear about one thing: No one grants me freedom for I am
a free person.

    So, I dare the European Commission and the German government:
Throw me in jail, lock me up and throw away the key for all I care.
But you will never be able to coerce me into being vaccinated if I,
the free citizen that I am, choose not to be vaccinated.

*  *  *

Text of relevant portion of HCRCA:

    45 ILCS 70/5) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 5305)
    Sec. 5. Discrimination. It shall be unlawful for any person,
public or private institution, or public official to discriminate
against any person in any manner, including but not limited to,
licensing, hiring, promotion, transfer, staff appointment, hospital,
managed care entity, or any other privileges, because of such person’s
conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist,
counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any
particular form of health care services contrary to his or her
conscience.
    (Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)