Two bills have been passed by the state Senate and are being considered by the state Assembly
by Patrick Delaney
MADISON, Wisconsin, March 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — With support from broad initiatives to protect citizens from the growing trend of de facto mandated COVID-19 vaccinations, Wisconsin state legislators have responded with two bills affirming that neither local health officials nor employers can require these injections of residents or employees, respectively.
In a public hearing yesterday, hosted by the Assembly’s Committee on Constitution and Ethics, members were exposed to a continuous stream of support for the following two bills:
- AB23 prohibits state and local health officers from “requiring individuals to receive a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which causes COVID-19.”
- AB25 prohibits “an employer from requiring an individual to receive a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus or show evidence of having received such a vaccine.”
In his opening remarks introducing the bills, co-sponsor state Sen. André Jacque (R-De Pere) stated “[a]pprehension by the general public in receiving COVID vaccines is understandable, given that their development and approval was expedited at breakneck speed and not as robustly examined and tested for long-term effects.”
“Vaccines can kill or make some people with auto-immune disorders … very sick. Forcing the vaccination of millions of young and healthy citizens who perceive themselves to be at an acceptably low risk from COVID-19 is ethically disputed,” he said.
“We don’t know how long immunity conferred by the vaccines lasts, none of the trials were designed to tell us if the vaccine prevents serious disease or virus transmission, and, we don’t yet know if they have any adverse effects on various subpopulations,” Jacque said.
He further noted that according to a December ABC News/Ipsos poll, “61% of Americans believe their state shouldn’t require that people get vaccinated to return to work or school, a number that rises to 63% among political independents.”
With regards to the rights of employees, Jacque affirmed it is “imperative that a person’s choice of whether or not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine does not impact their ability to make a living and provide for their family.”
And these situations are “not hypothetical,” he added, highlighting several examples from his own district, and the case of a nursing home in Janesville, which attempted such a mandate, even laying off employees who declined injections of these experimental substances.
“It is critical to respect, and protect, individual freedom in medical decisions,” he concluded.
Legislative Director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, Matt Sande, introduced the highly developed position of the Personhood Alliance (PA) on vaccine ethics, which he directly helped develop as a founding member of PA.
As he summarized, this PA policy “opposes and deems morally unacceptable the production and testing of vaccines using the remains of aborted human beings.” And, secondly, it “affirms the rights of all people to refuse medical treatment and to reject violations of their and their family’s bodily integrity, moral conscience, and constitutional protections through forced or coerced vaccines.”
Kimberly Smith, an African American from Oregon, stated AB 23 & 25 were “very pro-black bills!” She encouraged all to read a book titled Medical Apartheid, which in her words “describes the atrocities by the medical community” against black people and why the latter suffer from high degrees of iatrophobia, that is the fear of doctors.
The author, Harriet Washington, reports on many such abuses throughout history, including, according to Smith, the use of an experimental vaccine in Haiti which “killed Haitian children and was moved to Los Angeles, and was given to Black and Hispanic children,” killing many there, as well.
Smith summarized in her testimony, that “a vote against bill 23 and 25, or a veto against bill 23 or 25, is an act of violence against the black community. It is white supremacy. It is racist in its most simplest [sic] form.”
Expressing sincere gratitude to the legislators, Smith, a Democrat, said, “I want to thank the Republican legislature for advocating for the black community, I think without even knowing it.”
Each of the spokespersons of organizations, and other citizens who testify, are required to submit a “hearing slip.” At the end of the session, Committee Chairman Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego), held up a stack of approximately 100 hearing slips submitted by those who either registered or testified in favor of these bills. Then, he showed the room the slip of the solitary individual who registered against identifying this person as “the UW Health and Clinics lobbyist, Connie Schulze.”
Wichgers told LifeSiteNews that this was “a lengthy committee hearing which included substantial information with overwhelming sentiments in favor” of the bills. “As the chair, I am compelled to hold an executive session soon, obtain a vote from our committee and petition the speaker to send it to the Assembly floor.”
With the Wisconsin state Senate having already passed these bills, passage in the Assembly would send them to the desk of Gov. Tony Evers (D). His position on the bills is not clear yet.
“Assembly bills 23 & 25 specifically reinforce our vaccine ethics position. For the many Wisconsinites who earnestly avoid any entanglement in the abortion industry, forcing them to receive a vaccine produced from or tested using aborted fetal cells is repugnant, a total violation of conscience,” he said.
This is the case for the current Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines which were “unethically tested” using fetal cells “harvested from the kidney of a preborn baby aborted in the Netherlands in 1973.” And the new Janssen / Johnson & Johnson experimental vaccine uses aborted cell lines from an 18-week-old fetus aborted in 1985 “in its development and production,” Sande said.
Finally, “whether or not a vaccine is ethically produced and tested, it is unethical, and highly offensive, for the state, an employer, or anyone to force it on an individual who may strongly resist it for a variety of health, conscience, religious or personal reasons. It is a direct physical assault on that person’s bodily integrity. Such an assault can leave a deep emotional and psychological impact, inducing intense fear, distrust, and anger,” he said.
