Mandates Kill and Maim
Force Vaccinated’ — why does David Ihben use that two-word phrase to describe his family’s story? In this interview, viewers hear about how his unvaccinated kids were expected to be caught up on their immunizations after a court ruling. Learn the details in David’s account from the CHD Bus Stories page. It is obscene when you consider that the people that are elected to protect us are actually injuring and killing us . And they would like us to believe this is not an issue. There have been a total of 17 people that have been compensated by the government. There is lots of data that is being ignored because our corrupt government, Big Pharm, and our legacy media that are all beng paid to look the other way.
Based on the information provided, there are a few key points to consider regarding the legal precedent for Judge Burnett's order to vaccinate the Ihben children:
Judges generally have broad discretion in custody cases to make decisions they believe are in the best interests of the child. However, ordering specific medical treatments is unusual and potentially controversial.
There is strong Supreme Court precedent supporting the government's authority to mandate vaccines in some circumstances. The 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld the constitutionality of mandatory vaccination laws for public health reasons
However, Jacobson dealt with a state law mandating vaccines, not a judge's order in an individual custody case. The legal basis for a judge unilaterally ordering medical treatment in this context is less clear.
Some states have laws that specifically prohibit mandatory vaccination. For example, New York law prohibits "mandatory immunization of adults or children"
The existence of such laws in Tennessee could potentially limit a judge's authority to order vaccinations.
Generally, parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children, including decisions about vaccination. A judge overriding both parents' wishes on this matter is highly unusual.
The lack of medical consultation or individualized assessment in ordering 18 vaccines at once for a 5-year-old raises additional legal and ethical concerns.
Without more details on Tennessee law and the specific circumstances of the case, it's difficult to definitively state the legal precedent for Judge Burnett's actions. His order appears to be an unusual and potentially controversial use of judicial authority in a custody case, going beyond typical best interest determinations into specific medical decision-making. The legality and appropriateness of such an order could potentially be subject to challenge or appeal.
