5

The Press Conference About the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruesewitz Decision

Thursday, March 3, 2011, just may be a high water mark in vaccine advocacy issues.

Numerous vaccine safety advocates assembled on the apron of the massive front steps to the U.S. Supreme Court on First Street, NE, in Washington, DC, to let the court—and the world—know that the highest court in the land got it wrong and did not act to protect an individual’s right to be compensated when damaged by a medical product: vaccines.

The court’s February 22, 2011, decision ‘amputated’ tort law while setting a legal precedent that just may scare many more parents from having their children vaccinated.

Hannah Bruesewitz’s father spoke as did Emily Tersell, whose 21-year-old daughter died after her third Gardasil® injection, as did Attorney Rolf Hazlehurst explain how his son, Yates, was damaged after a vaccine and is left with an autism diagnosis. These three parents spoke candidly, often citing raw facts that brought shivers to bystanders who stopped to hear the open-air press conference convened by authors of the book Vaccine Epidemic, Louise Habakus and Mary Holland, J.D.

To see a video of the 28-minute press conference, please access this web site (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13065127).

Incidentally, I was present at that press conference, as nothing could be more important than my showing solidarity with the Bruesewitz Family and thousands of children and families whose lives have been ruined by vaccines. It’s time that the U.S. Congress takes control of a real epidemic in the USA that it inadvertently created: Vaccine-damaged children who have no recourse at law. It is imperative that Congress revisit—and repeal—the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) that the Supreme Court just doesn’t understand. The NCVIA is NOT what the 99th U.S. Congress really intended.

The court’s 6 to 2 decision indicates just how ‘out to lunch’ Supreme Court justices really can be. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissenting remarks clarify how uninformed their fellow justices are about tort law, especially when it comes to vaccine makers. That has to be corrected, and very soon.

At the press conference I gave several members of the press and one U.S. Senate staffer the following press release:

Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need for Congressional Investigation

Catherine J Frompovich and Laraine C Abbey-Katzev, co-editors of the 145-page monograph, Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need for Congressional Investigation, stand in solidarity with the Hannah Bruesewitz Family whose constitutional and tort rights were negated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s unfortunate 6-2 decision of February 22, 2011.

If SCOTUS ruled almost simultaneously with the Bruesewitz case that “Mazda can be sued over seat-belt death,” where in U.S. tort law does it state those damaged by medical products cannot be sued? That misinterpretation of tort law, we feel, can be attributed to Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote the majority opinion for the court. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content…)

Additionally, the U.S. Congress MUST revisit the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and also investigate neurotoxins and other poisons in vaccines—something Congress may not have been aware of fully—or was lobbied about with skewed or pseudo-science data, research, and peer-reviews generated by those who make vaccines.

Frompovich and Abbey-Katzev believe the two dissenting Justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, were on the correct track about vaccines, and SCOTUS should have followed them when making its decision. Unfortunately, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 09-152 sets a legal precedent for the future to deny countless children and adults of their legal and moral rights to compensation. The court’s decision denies product-damaged-individuals their rights to life, liberty, and happiness, including the right to due process. SCOTUS, in view of this decision, probably should be regarded as a ‘shill’ for Big Pharma and as a detriment to human and personal rights in the USA.

Interestingly, the USA condemns the abuse of personal rights in other countries, but here at home, when it comes to pharmaceutical governance, even the president became involved in lobbying SCOTUS to rule against a person’s right to sue with compensation for damage from a medical product. Is the SCOTUS Bruesewitz decision a red flag on human and personal rights in the USA? Everyone who values his or her life and body should be asking that stunning question now, and also should be demanding that SCOTUS rescind its decision—something unheard of—but, nevertheless, ethically moral—if SCOTUS is to be regarded as believing in U.S. tort law and human rights.

Thursday, March 3, 2011, just may be a high water mark in vaccine advocacy issues.

Numerous vaccine safety advocates assembled on the apron of the massive front steps to the U.S. Supreme Court on First Street, NE, in Washington, DC, to let the court—and the world—know that the highest court in the land got it wrong and did not act to protect an individual’s right to be compensated when damaged by a medical product: vaccines.

The court’s February 22, 2011, decision ‘amputated’ tort law while setting a legal precedent that just may scare many more parents from having their children vaccinated.

 

Hannah Bruesewitz’s father spoke as did Emily Tersell, whose 15-year-old daughter died after her third Gardasil® injection, as did Attorney Rolf Hazlehurst explain how his son, Yates, was damaged after a vaccine and is left with an autism diagnosis. These three parents spoke candidly, often citing raw facts that brought shivers to bystanders who stopped to hear the open-air press conference convened by authors of the book Vaccine Epidemic, Louise Habakus and Mary Holland, J.D.

 

To see a video of the 28-minute press conference, please access this web site

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13065127.

 

 

Incidentally, I was present at that press conference, as nothing could be more important than my showing solidarity with the Bruesewitz Family and thousands of children and families whose lives have been ruined by vaccines. It’s time that the U.S. Congress takes control of a real epidemic in the USA that it inadvertently created: Vaccine-damaged children who have no recourse at law. It is imperative that Congress revisit—and repeal—the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) that the Supreme Court just doesn’t understand. The NCVIA is NOT what the 99th U.S. Congress really intended.

 

The court’s 6 to 2 decision indicates just how ‘out to lunch’ Supreme Court justices really can be. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissenting remarks clarify how uninformed their fellow justices are about tort law, especially when it comes to vaccine makers. That has to be corrected, and very soon.

 

At the press conference I gave several members of the press and one U.S. Senate staffer the following press release:

Vaccines & Vaccinations:

The Need for Congressional Investigation

 

Catherine J Frompovich and Laraine C Abbey-Katzev, co-editors of the 145-page monograph, Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need for Congressional Investigation, stand in solidarity with the Hannah Bruesewitz Family whose constitutional and tort rights were negated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s unfortunate 6-2 decision of February 22, 2011.

 

If SCOTUS ruled almost simultaneously with the Bruesewitz case that “Mazda can be sued over seat-belt death,” where in U.S. tort law does it state those damaged by medical products cannot be sued? That misinterpretation of tort law, we feel, can be attributed to Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote the majority opinion for the court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022305856.html

 

Additionally, the U.S. Congress MUST revisit the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and also investigate neurotoxins and other poisons in vaccines—something Congress may not have been aware of fully—or was lobbied about with skewed or pseudo-science data, research, and peer-reviews generated by those who make vaccines.

 

Frompovich and Abbey-Katzev believe the two dissenting Justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, were on the correct track about vaccines, and SCOTUS should have followed them when making its decision. Unfortunately, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 09-152 sets a legal precedent for the future to deny countless children and adults of their legal and moral rights to compensation. The court’s decision denies product-damaged-individuals their rights to life, liberty, and happiness, including the right to due process. SCOTUS, in view of this decision, probably should be regarded as a ‘shill’ for Big Pharma and as a detriment to human and personal rights in the USA.

 

Interestingly, the USA condemns the abuse of personal rights in other countries, but here at home, when it comes to pharmaceutical governance, even the president became involved in lobbying SCOTUS to rule against a person’s right to sue with compensation for damage from a medical product. Is the SCOTUS Bruesewitz decision a red flag on human and personal rights in the USA? Everyone who values his or her life and body should be asking that stunning question now, and also should be demanding that SCOTUS rescind its decision—something unheard of—but, nevertheless, ethically moral—if SCOTUS is to be regarded as believing in U.S. tort law and human rights.

Thursday, March 3, 2011, just may be a high water mark in vaccine advocacy issues.

Numerous vaccine safety advocates assembled on the apron of the massive front steps to the U.S. Supreme Court on First Street, NE, in Washington, DC, to let the court—and the world—know that the highest court in the land got it wrong and did not act to protect an individual’s right to be compensated when damaged by a medical product: vaccines.

The court’s February 22, 2011, decision ‘amputated’ tort law while setting a legal precedent that just may scare many more parents from having their children vaccinated.

 

Hannah Bruesewitz’s father spoke as did Emily Tersell, whose 15-year-old daughter died after her third Gardasil® injection, as did Attorney Rolf Hazlehurst explain how his son, Yates, was damaged after a vaccine and is left with an autism diagnosis. These three parents spoke candidly, often citing raw facts that brought shivers to bystanders who stopped to hear the open-air press conference convened by authors of the book Vaccine Epidemic, Louise Habakus and Mary Holland, J.D.

 

To see a video of the 28-minute press conference, please access this web site

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13065127.

 

 

Incidentally, I was present at that press conference, as nothing could be more important than my showing solidarity with the Bruesewitz Family and thousands of children and families whose lives have been ruined by vaccines. It’s time that the U.S. Congress takes control of a real epidemic in the USA that it inadvertently created: Vaccine-damaged children who have no recourse at law. It is imperative that Congress revisit—and repeal—the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) that the Supreme Court just doesn’t understand. The NCVIA is NOT what the 99th U.S. Congress really intended.

 

The court’s 6 to 2 decision indicates just how ‘out to lunch’ Supreme Court justices really can be. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissenting remarks clarify how uninformed their fellow justices are about tort law, especially when it comes to vaccine makers. That has to be corrected, and very soon.

 

At the press conference I gave several members of the press and one U.S. Senate staffer the following press release:

Vaccines & Vaccinations:

The Need for Congressional Investigation

 

Catherine J Frompovich and Laraine C Abbey-Katzev, co-editors of the 145-page monograph, Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need for Congressional Investigation, stand in solidarity with the Hannah Bruesewitz Family whose constitutional and tort rights were negated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s unfortunate 6-2 decision of February 22, 2011.

 

If SCOTUS ruled almost simultaneously with the Bruesewitz case that “Mazda can be sued over seat-belt death,” where in U.S. tort law does it state those damaged by medical products cannot be sued? That misinterpretation of tort law, we feel, can be attributed to Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote the majority opinion for the court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022305856.html

 

Additionally, the U.S. Congress MUST revisit the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and also investigate neurotoxins and other poisons in vaccines—something Congress may not have been aware of fully—or was lobbied about with skewed or pseudo-science data, research, and peer-reviews generated by those who make vaccines.

 

Frompovich and Abbey-Katzev believe the two dissenting Justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, were on the correct track about vaccines, and SCOTUS should have followed them when making its decision. Unfortunately, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 09-152 sets a legal precedent for the future to deny countless children and adults of their legal and moral rights to compensation. The court’s decision denies product-damaged-individuals their rights to life, liberty, and happiness, including the right to due process. SCOTUS, in view of this decision, probably should be regarded as a ‘shill’ for Big Pharma and as a detriment to human and personal rights in the USA.

 

Interestingly, the USA condemns the abuse of personal rights in other countries, but here at home, when it comes to pharmaceutical governance, even the president became involved in lobbying SCOTUS to rule against a person’s right to sue with compensation for damage from a medical product. Is the SCOTUS Bruesewitz decision a red flag on human and personal rights in the USA? Everyone who values his or her life and body should be asking that stunning question now, and also should be demanding that SCOTUS rescind its decision—something unheard of—but, nevertheless, ethically moral—if SCOTUS is to be regarded as believing in U.S. tort law and human rights.

Catherine J. Frompovich
 

Catherine J Frompovich is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting. Catherine is an editor and writing consultant who helps authors get into publication. For numerous semesters she taught several writing courses for a suburban Philadelphia school district’s Adult Evening School. Her passion is assisting and guiding authors into print. Catherine’s latest book, A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, will be available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook sometime in July 2012. Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008).

  • Phil

    Interesting

  • Patrons99

    Excellent post, Catherine!

    “It is imperative that Congress revisit—and repeal—the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) that the Supreme Court just doesn’t understand. The NCVIA is NOT what the 99th U.S. Congress really intended.”

    I completely agree. Moreover, all mandated “inoculations” must be declared unconstitutional. Mandated “inoculations” represent the worst State Action imagineable!

    In my non-attorney opinion, federal civil rights are violated by vaccine mandates. Constitutional Due Process violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated by state vaccine mandates. They are unconstitutional.

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/02/this-will-only-hurt-for-evercompulsory-vaccine-laws-injured-children-and-no-redress-kimberly-j-garde-i-introduction.html#comments

  • Patrons99

    Mandated “inoculations” represent the worst State Action imagineable! Mandated “inoculations” represent a “false flag” operation against the People! The sooner that the public makes this realization, the sooner the nightmare will come to an end.

    The public should now DEMAND that a carefully-controlled fully-vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated comparison be conducted. Notwithstanding the urgent need for such a study, the unbiased, unconflicted data presently available, strongly suggest that the risk is far too great that the vaccine schedules and mandated inoculations are actually inducing more death, disease, and disability, than they are ostensibly “preventing”.

    MAKE AUTISM STOP
    MEDICAL FREEDOM NOW
    VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM
    END VACCINE MANDATES NOW
    END MEDICAL FASCISM NOW
    EDUCATE BEFORE YOU VACCINATE

  • Patrons99

    Mandated inoculations with neurotoxic metals, endocrine disruptors, phase transfer catalysts, ionophores, and non-human DNA, are crimes against humanity. Humanity has a God-given inalienable right to opt-out of this barbaric practice. This right must be memorialized and protected in law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

    “In the United States, invocation of the Parens Patriae Doctrine is constrained by the constitutional Parental Liberty Doctrine.[4] This has the effect of limiting civil rights abuses caused by unjustified government interference with minors.”

    The term in loco parentis, Latin for “in the place of a parent” or “instead of a parent,”[1] refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law. First, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students’ civil liberties.[1]”

    “Though in loco parentis continues to apply to primary and secondary education in the U.S., application of the concept has largely disappeared in higher education. However, this was not always the case.”

    “The landmark 1961 case Dixon v. Alabama was the beginning of the end for in loco parentis in U.S. higher education. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Alabama State College could not summarily expel students without due process.[5]”