Home>Articles>Senator Melendez Introduces Resolution to Defeat Mandatory COVID Vaccine Mandates

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (Photo: Melissa Melendez)

Senator Melendez Introduces Resolution to Defeat Mandatory COVID Vaccine Mandates

Substantial outbreaks in highly vaccinated Israel, Malta and Vermont show an increase in vaccination rates doesn’t guarantee reduction in COVID cases

By Katy Grimes, August 23, 2021 4:45 pm

California State Senator Melissa Melendez (R- Lake Elsinore) introduced SCR 59 Monday, 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 Sen. 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.”

Melendez’s resolution specifically addresses the following Constitutional issues:

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 The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice”; and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.”

There are more “whereases,” but these are the legal issues, with links added in.

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, Melendez’s press statement said.

“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.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:

 RELATED ARTICLES

25 thoughts on “Senator Melendez Introduces Resolution to Defeat Mandatory COVID Vaccine Mandates

  1. “Substantial outbreaks in highly vaccinated Israel, Malta and Vermont show an increase in vaccination rates doesn’t guarantee reduction in COVID cases.” That’s simply not true. The US states with the highest new case rates are: Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, Arkansas, Wyoming, Texas, North Carolina, Oklahoma and West Virginia. These are the states with the highest case rates. All are low-vaccination-rate states, and all of them have more than TWICE the case rate that Vermont has.

    The states with the highest vaccination rates are: Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Maryland. Rhode Island has the highest new case rate of these, and still has less than half the case rate in Texas. And Mississipi’s rate is almost twice the rate in Texas.

    Katy, your claim that Vermont’s case rate, which is the 14th lowest in the USA, shows vaccines don’t guarantee case-load reduction, is obviously FALSE and CONTRARY TO FACT. The correlation between high vaccination rates and low case rates is strong and cannot be denied!

    Vaccines aren’t going to protect everyone. Nothing can protect everyone. Just like seat belts can’t protect everyone from death in a motor vehicle accident. That’s no excuse for making a BOGUS claim that seat belts don’t reduce vehicle injuries and deaths.

      1. @CD9: I get it, that you may think calling someone “Fauci” is an insult. I don’t. I hope that if I am lucky to live as long as Fauci has, that I’ll still have such stamina. And perhaps you find facts and logic tedious. Can you, though, consider what is real and what is not?

        1. You should view it as an insult, and should you live as long as Fauci and have “the stamina” to lie, cheat and spread fear and misinformation to the degree he has, I will pray for your salvation that you won’t suffer the eternal fate that he will, for all of the lies and deception that is his hallmark.

          And I can discern truth from lies and “what is real and what is not” to use your vernacular, VERY well… Why? Because I ignore the mainstream media outlets that spread the lies and deception fomented by your guidestone Fauci, and the medical industrial complex and their government mouthpieces at the FDA and the CDC…
          Let the scales fall from your eyes….

          1. @CD9: I honestly cannot comprehend why you insist on ignoring facts. It makes no sense! I quoted facts and all you have to come back with is first, insults, then that you will pray for me. I don’t know what to make of prayers and insults mixed together.

    1. The people who are terrified and still wear masks outdoors as well as in their car by themselves tend to be liberal democrats who believe EVERYTHING the lying liberal media tells them. I’m betting you are one of them!!!

      1. @John: Do you really believe that peer-reviewed medical journals are “the lying liberal media”?

        Seriously?

    2. And what exactly is a “case rate”? Does that mean someone actually became ill? Who is producing the case rate data? In my county the second declared Covid “fatality” was a 96-year-old woman who was already in Hospice . . . already in Hospice! The third Covid “fatality” was a 77-year-old man who suffered a massive heart attack and died on the emergency room table. If case rates are composed of this kind of doctored BS data, then all the state vs. state comparisons are nothing more than baseless political posturing.

      1. @Fed Up: Come on, you know what “case rate” is as well as I do. It is the number of positive test results reported from the specific region through the lab testing system, divided by the population of that region.

        Of course elderly and vulnerable will be the first to show symptoms and die. That has nothing to do with the current wave of cases and hospitalizations, where far more young adults and children are getting sick. This isn’t because they are more vulnerable, but because they refuse to get vaxxed and take the epidemic seriously.

      1. @Josh: Thank you for including that link. I followed the link to the Lancet paper the Daily Expose misquoted. The original quote from the paper titled “Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam” is as follows:

        “Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”

        It says that Delta cases have higher viral loads *compared with the old strains*. Not compared with unvaccinated people. This isn’t news, and it has nothing to do with vaccination but everything to do with Delta. The paper also noted that all the cases of vaxxed workers were mild or asymptomatic. It is simply not true that “vaccinated workers have 251 times the viral loads of unvaccinated workers.” It is a mis-reading and mis-quoting of the actual words in the paper. It is a LIE.

        Please, please, please, go look at the original source in the Lancet. It does not say what YOU think it says or what the Expose claims. This is typical of misinterpretation that can only be deliberate. Yes, you are being LIED TO. No, it isn’t the “MSM” that’s lying to you, it’s the Expose, guilty of a particularly pernicious lie: Twisting reality and deliberately misquoting a genuine source to say the opposite of the truth!

    3. Actually, it is true. I was just on the travel website to Israel (one of the most highly vaccinated countries) and yet they have issued a warning not to travel…Level 4: Very High Level of COVID-19 in Israel. The vaccines do not offer protection from getting covid or transmitting it to others, only hopefully preventing hospitalization. Even then, there are still about 1/3 of the hospitalized have been vaccinated. I personally know 3 breakthrough cases of covid within the last 4 weeks…and there are probably more in my sphere of people I don’t know about.
      https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices/covid-4/coronavirus-israel

  2. Thank god for Senator Melendez someone who actually believes in upholding the Constitution she swore to protect and defend. This pandemic has never been about safety always about the Pharmaceutical lobby and the greed of the Global Reset planners. The bad reactions, paralysis, heart attacks, death and ineffectiveness of these mRNA genetic manipulation shots can’t be kept hidden anymore. Those who give up freedom for false security will lose both.

  3. A great start to end this ongoing insanity under the guise of public health.
    Ms. Melendez can we next work on a bill to repeal AB 262?
    Curiously enough it was passed and signed by Newsom in October 2019! Just a mere few months before the Wuhan CCP virus hit our shores.
    Following is the introduction summary of the bill, below is the link to read it in it’s entirety.
    [This bill would require a local health officer, during an outbreak of a communicable disease, or upon the imminent and proximate threat of a communicable disease outbreak or epidemic that threatens the public’s health, to notify and update governmental entities within the health officer’s jurisdiction about certain communicable diseases that may affect them, if, in the opinion of the local health officer, action or inaction on the part of the governmental entity might affect outbreak response efforts. The bill would require the local health officer to make any relevant information available to those governmental entities, as specified, and would require both the local health officer and the governmental entities to comply with applicable state and federal privacy laws with regard to information that the health officer provides to the governmental entities. The bill would authorize the local health officer to issue orders to other governmental entities within the local health officer’s jurisdiction to take any action the local health officer deems necessary to control the spread of the communicable disease.
    By imposing new requirements on local health officers, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.]

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB262

    1. @OFUCG: Not sure if you realize this, but Sen. Melendez voted for AG 262,… twice. Nobody, no Senator, no Assembly member, voted against it.

  4. Senator Melendez you are protecting the rights and lives of all Californians. I thank you for introducing SCR 59. We must fight politically motivated mandatory vaccinations. This time it is for COVID-19; what will be the next emergency action to be used to usurp our God given right to make private decisions regarding our health.

  5. THANK YOU, Senator Melendez, YES! Particularly as the California Department of Public Health has admitted that they have no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus being isolated in a human being. Here is there admission:
    RE: Public Records Reference # P013534-081321 —
    Dear Walker Whelan:
    On August 13, 2021, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) received your request for records under the Public Records Act (PRA) wherein you requested the following:

    ” The CDPH (California Department of Public Heath) must provide by request all white papers describing the isolation of the COVID-19 aka SARS-CoV-2 virus in human beings, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material. Note: The word “isolate” indicates: a thing is separated from all other material surrounding It. I am not requesting white papers where “isolation” of SARS-CoV-2 refers to: the culturing of something, or- the performance of an amplification test (PCR), or – the sequencing of something. To clarify I am requesting via disclosure all white papers showing Isolation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in human beings in your possession or in the possession of CDPA, as these white papers would have been integral in the crafting of the statutes made under the “Public Health Act” here In California.”

    CDPH has completed a diligent search and has determined that it is not in possession of records that are responsive to your request. For this reason, this concludes CDPH’s response to your request, which will now be closed.
    Sincerely,
    Taylor St. Mary
    AGPA
    CID/DCDC

    1. @Dibby: What is the relevance of “SARS-CoV-2 virus being isolated in a human being”? Why exclude PCR test results? Expecting the state to waste resources re-sequencing genetic material from viral samples is nonsensical when we already know what genetic sequences and sequence fragments the PCR should look for to find virus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *