Home California Senator Melendez Introduces Resolution Pushing Back on Mandatory COVID Vaccine Requirements

Senator Melendez Introduces Resolution Pushing Back on Mandatory COVID Vaccine Requirements

by ECT
Senator Melissa Melendez

SACRAMENTO – California State Senator Melissa Melendez (R- Lake Elsinore) introduced SCR 59 today, which encourages the Legislature to amend current law preventing the discrimination against those making informed decisions not to receive a COVID vaccine.

“Californians have a right to decide what they choose to put in their bodies without being threatened with their jobs by government or employers,” said Melissa Melendez. “For an entire year, COVID vaccines were held out to be dangerous by political elites, who only now support strong mandates. Our Constitution allows free-thinking people to take responsibility and make decisions for themselves and their families; and those decisions should be free from retaliation or coercion by their government.”

Put simply, SCR 59 confirms the Legislature’s resolve to amend California Health and Safety Code Section 120140 with future legislation to support the constitutional mandate that “all people are by nature free and independent…”. These changes would ensure that Californians must provide consent for any preventative, diagnostic or therapeutic medical interventions taken by the state with regards to a disease and its potential spread and the decision to withhold consent will not result in any disadvantage.

“Cities across this state have or are considering mandates seeking to segregate out the vaxxed from the unvaxxed” said Melendez. “California shouldn’t promote the open discrimination of those who’ve made a choice when substantial outbreaks in highly vaccinated places like Israel, Malta and Vermont make it obvious that an increase in vaccination rates doesn’t necessarily guarantee a reduction in COVID cases. Asking for passports or papers to verify your vaccine status to ride a bus, attend school or receive benefits is simply un-American.”

Here is a look at SCR 59:

SCR 59, as introduced, Melendez. Medical interventions: voluntary and informed consent.
This measure would urge the Legislature and the Governor to take actions to protect Californians’ right to make their own health and medical decisions, among other related actions. The measure would urge the Legislature to amend existing law, as specified, in order to require the voluntary and informed consent of an individual or their guardian, and to authorize the consent’s withdrawal without prejudice, for any preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical intervention taken by the State Department of Public Health to ascertain the nature of a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease and to prevent its spread.
WHEREAS, In a free society, the integrity of personal liberty is firmly recognized and protected, even during times of exigency or emergency, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, The California Constitution declares, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy”; and
WHEREAS, The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), states, “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court reminds us that “[n]o right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law”, and that courts have held that a competent person’s right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is both a constitutional and a common law right; and
WHEREAS, The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution clarifies and memorializes, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and
WHEREAS, The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects United States citizens, as “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has reminded us that “[t]he Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency”; and
WHEREAS, The critical events of the year 2020 have resulted in the Legislature and citizens becoming concerned about California laws and emergency orders that could infringe upon the state constitutional and inalienable rights of Californians to enjoy and defend their life and liberty, to acquire, possess, and protect property, and to pursue and obtain their own safety, happiness, and privacy, and could infringe upon international human rights principles that recognize the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, requiring that those rights be protected by the rule of law; and
WHEREAS, The Legislature finds that existing state law, Section 120140 of the Health and Safety Code, could infringe upon the right to consent or not consent and allows the government to take possession or control of the body of any living person; and
WHEREAS, The Legislature finds that support for, and promotion of, medical, immunity, or vaccine passports, or other document requirements imposed by governments, businesses, or other entities, could lead to people sharing their private medical information unwillingly in order to participate in everyday life, commerce, education, employment, entertainment, gatherings, or travel; and
WHEREAS, Experts from the federal government and private industry were leveraged to develop vaccines quickly, and those vaccines have been made widely available for those who choose to use them; and
WHEREAS, The Legislature finds that the inflexible implementation of “one-size-fits-all” medical requirements places a disproportionate and unequal risk burden on those individuals who are genetically, otherwise biologically, or environmentally at higher risk for suffering harm from medical interventions; and
WHEREAS, Parental choice and involvement are key for Californians to make the best and most informed decision to help families, communities, and the state to be their very best; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly thereof concurring, That the Legislature and the Governor are urged to take actions to protect Californians’ right to make their own health and medical decisions, and to take additional actions that reflect the principle that all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights, that citizens should always be given the opportunity to decide to consent, or not to consent, to medical treatments or other interventions without any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, undue influence, or disadvantage; and be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature is urged to amend Section 120140 of the Health and Safety Code, through future legislation, by adding to the section’s existing language the following new subdivision:
“(b) Any preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical intervention taken by the department to ascertain the nature of the disease and to prevent its spread shall be carried out with the voluntary and informed consent of an individual or their guardian. The consent shall, where appropriate, be express, and may be withdrawn by the individual or their guardian for any reason without prejudice”; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

You may also like

9 comments

Robert C. Aug 24, 2021 - 3:21 pm

One of the stupidest meaningless resolutions I’ve read.

Jan Aug 24, 2021 - 7:27 pm

Finally someone sane!

Street-Sweeper Aug 24, 2021 - 8:08 pm

Hope she doesn’t show up at an emergency room when she gets covid. Grandstanding bottom feeders are their finest.

Person with free will Aug 25, 2021 - 7:44 pm

We need more of these free thinking people in our government. My body my choice. Unvaxxed lives matter.

Robert C. Aug 26, 2021 - 4:50 pm

It isn’t just about “your body,” Free Willer. It’s the danger your unvaccinated self poses to those around you including family and friends. You need to think more about your responsibility to society instead of just your selfish “rights.”

Kirsten Aug 31, 2021 - 3:24 pm

How is an “unvaccinated” (I should just say someone who has chosen not to get this shot because it is technically not a vaccine) person putting any other person at risk more than one who has gotten the shot?
It is becoming very clear that those who have had these shots are still spreading the virus AND that they can still get infected by the virus.

But to play devil’s advocate and pretend these shots are effective: if they are, then aren’t those who chose to get it deemed safe and protected anyway? Why would they care who else gets the shot?

You’re basically saying it’s reasonable to get upset at a person for not wearing their seatbelt when you’re perfectly strapped into yours. Since when does it become any of your business??

Concerned citizen Aug 26, 2021 - 10:57 pm

What an amazing idea – free will. What if there was a country where that was allowed.

As of Aug. 13, 2021, according to the VAERS database on the CDC site, 13,068 people have died after getting one of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. This is nearly double the number of US soldiers dying in the 20 year Afghan war and the Iraq war combined. This is 50% more in 9 months than all the deaths reported in VAERS following all other vaccines given in the past 31 years. And 17,228 people have been permanently disabled.

And, if the finding of Harvard Medical School’s study of several years ago indicating that less than one percent of adverse vaccine events get reported to VAERS, maybe the number of people dying after getting the Covid jab is well over one million.

But who cares? It doesn’t seem to bother the CDC – or NIH. It is full stream ahead. Covid vaccines are safe and effective – even though more fully vaccinated people are getting Covid now than unvaccinated people – according to CDC data.

I’m a registered Democrat, but salute Senator Melendez for her sanity, courage, critical thinking and concern for the people of California who don’t want to be part of the greatest medical experiment in human history using an unproven, dangerous and ineffective medical intervention.

Robert C. Aug 27, 2021 - 11:59 am

“More fully vaccinated people are getting Covid now than unvaccinated people”?

You need to recheck your facts. Go look at Florida, Texas, Arkansas, et. al, right now. Your “facts” are wrong.

Delores Valderrama Aug 30, 2021 - 9:16 am

I oppose AB 455

Comments are closed.