It may not surprise those who know that children can sometimes receive “transgender” treatments or have abortions without parental consent. But in the latest example of systemic child abuse, there are people who now want to bypass parents so that they can give children — as young as five — COVID-19 “vaccinations.”
What’s more, this standard has already been adopted in certain parts of Canada, which means that given enough time, it could become reality in the United States as well. In fact, way back in the spring, a Pennsylvania state senator crafted a bill that would allow 14-year-olds to get the coronavirus genetic-therapy agents (a.k.a. “vaccines”) sans parental consent.
As for the Canadian trespass, the province of British Columbia “has a sneaky little parental rights problem called the Infants Act Law, which outlines the legal position regarding “Mature Minor Consent and Immunization” for children under the age of 19,” Rebel News revealed on Wednesday.
“It’s the same law that can be used to allow a doctor to assist a child identifying as transgender with undergoing a medical transition, even if a parent objects due to potential health risks associated with such treatments, including sterilization,” the site continues.
Unbelievably, the Infants Act states in its section 17 that “an infant may consent to health care whether or not that health care would, in the absence of consent, constitute a trespass to the infant’s person, and if an infant provides that consent, the consent is effective and it is not necessary to obtain a consent to the health care from the infant’s parent or guardian.”
Note that “infant” in the above means “minor” (as is its wont, the legal profession insists on using its obfuscatory jargon). But the point is that a child, who mayn’t drive, buy cigarettes or alcohol, join the military, purchase firearms — or legally enter into contracts or engage in sexual activity with an adult — can consent to have a sex change (or a COVID shot) without parental consent.
Since a minor may often not even be given an aspirin in school without such, this can seem pathologically contradictory to the reason-oriented. But just as a man could be charged with a double murder for killing a pregnant woman but a doctor and that woman could’ve killed her unborn baby with impunity, it makes complete sense upon understanding that at issue is not principle but preference — for whatever happens to advance the leftist agenda. The mentality is explained by occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
As for “consent,” Jay Cameron, the litigation director for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, asked Rebel News rhetorically during an interview, “What is the government telling the child in order to obtain consent? Are they telling the child, ‘There’s a documented risk of heart inflammation now, or blood clotting, stroke or heart attack, death? Do you consent to neurological issues, potentially, for the rest of your life as has been observed in some places?’” (video below).
Of course, the average 12-year-old, let alone any five-year-old, couldn’t even begin to assess these risks intelligently.
Yet British Columbia isn’t alone in trumping parental rights. In Ontario, the provincial website states that “parents or substitute decision makers of children aged five to 11 will, for the most part, have to provide consent on behalf of the child at the time of the appointment before their children can receive a vaccine,” reports CTV News [Emphasis added.] “For the most part….”
Yet in “Ontario, there is no minimum age of consent under the Health Care Consent Act, meaning that as long as a person is deemed capable of making an informed decision about their [sic] health, they have the right to do so,” the site continues. “Children and youth over the age of 12 in Ontario can get the COVID-19 vaccine without parental consent,” CTV later relates — unless they’re deemed incapable of doing so.
Of course, who’s doing the deeming? How sound is their judgment and how pure are their motives?
Moreover, if a preteen child is deemed capable of making this significant medical decision, should this not reflect tacit emancipation? Does it not follow that the kid also then may be mature enough to drive, buy cigarettes or alcohol, join the military, enter into contracts, or engage in sexual activity with an adult? (Actually, the last thing, at least, is already on the Left’s agenda). Just deem away.
It’s the logic of pseudo-elites who, claiming sex is “gender” and gender is “assigned” at birth, assign states of being as the moment’s imperatives dictate. Hence is a baby an unviable tissue mass, a child an adult, and a citizen a subject — subject to change without notice as fancies and foolishness fluctuate.
