Mandatory Memory Wipe – California Senate Bill No. 86

“Mandatory Memory Wipe”

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – State Senator Richard Pan, (D), architect of California’s notorious SB-277, (mandatory school vaccination), today proposed SB-86, which calls for mandatory erasure of all painful “memories, thoughts, and emotions” from the memory banks of all school age children.

Proponents of the bill seek to protect children.  But critics, who dub it the “mandatory memory wipe,” believe it’s a diabolical scheme to plunge society farther into the more dimly lit regions of the darkside.  Many believe the radical procedure is unreasonably dangerous.

SB-86 Summary

If it becomes law, SB-86 will require: “Mandatory elimination, eradication, and removal of all brain matter that may contain painful memories, thoughts, or emotions that might cause potential harm to children.”  Ironically, in popular jargon, the term “to 86” something means to eliminate, eradicate, or remove it.

No Opt-Out – No Exemption – No Informed Consent 

The bill does not allow for children to opt-out of the procedure, except for the children of State lawmakers and judges who may opt-out.  The bill recognizes no medical exemptions.

Under the bill, the actual “wiping” procedure is deemed to be a “non-medical” event, and therefore, informed consent is not required – nor is a medical license – for the State to administer the “wipe.”

Similarities to Orwell’s 1984

Critics are quick to remark that SB-86 feels a bit like Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the protagonist, Mr. Smith, works at the government’s propaganda agency, the Ministry of Truth, which they humorously call “Minitrue.”  Mr. Smith’s job is to re-write newspaper articles – so they conform to the current political landscape.  “Who controls the past controls the future.”

When Facts Cease to Exist

In a future world where nobody remembers that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves or that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, then factually speaking, these events never occurred.  They cease to exist.

Soon, nobody will remember that, back in the 50s and 60s, many brave American mothers would throw “measles parties.”  Sadly, over time, the wisdom and success of these parties may eventually go extinct, especially if internet search engines continue to display nothing but industry-slanted search results – which unanimously warn against the (supposed) dangers of “measles parties.”

Nobody remembers that medical protocol once considered it harmful to vaccinate a child with eczema.  Sadly, modern pediatricians have forgotten this former protocol, and it may soon go extinct because the CDC no longer objects to vaccinating children with eczema.

Today, too few people remember that smallpox met its demise – not by vaccines or indoor plumbing – but because the once-deadly variola virus simply fizzled itself out after having mutated into variola minor, a less-hardy strain, (aka “mild smallpox”), which was then pronounced eradicated a few decades later.

Inner Ear Extraction Method

A hypodermic syringe is inserted into the inner ear, where substances are not injected, but extracted.  The syringe extracts, from the temporal lobe, certain memory substances which then exit the body as a foamy goo – a slimy, jellylike substance that was once the patient’s memories, thoughts, and emotions.

Because the procedure targets the temporal lobe, it extracts only “long-term” memories, while leaving “short-term” memories intact, thus allowing the children to continue performing their daily routines.

But the question arises:  After extracting the gelatinous substance – which holds the children’s deepest, darkest memories – what will the State then do with it?  Safely dispose of it?  Store it in liquid nitrogen?  Or harvest the foamy goo for nefarious medical research?

Enter Revolt Revoke Restore! 

Enter revoltrevokerestore.com – and the unsinkable Sharon Brown – who oppose the tyranny of SB-86!  Brown explains: “The State may not mandate medical procedures known to be unavoidably unsafe.”  The group’s attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, added: “Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the government out of your body.”  The bill is now in the Senate Thought Police Committee.

~~T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. (Feb. 24, 2017)

Mandatory Memory Wipe – California Senate Bill No. 86

Organ donation becomes mandatory in France

France has reversed its policy on organ donations so that all people could become donors on their death unless they join an official register to opt out.

The new law presumes consent for organs to be removed, even if it goes against the wishes of the family.

Until 1 January, when the legislation took effect, unless the person who had died had previously expressed a clear wish for or against donation, doctors were required to consult relatives who, in almost a third of cases, refused.

Those who do not want all or any of their organs to be used must now put their name on a “refusal register” – so far 150,000 people have signed up. The authorities have promised to make it easier for those who wish to refuse by allowing them to join the register online instead of by registered post.

Alternatively, those vehemently opposed to their organs being used can leave a signed document with their next-of-kin or transmit their wish orally to relatives who must make a written declaration of non-consent to doctors at the time of death. The process is explained on the agency’s Facebook page.

In November, the French Agence de la Biomédecine released a film, Déjà-vu2, aimed at encouraging 15- to 25-year-olds to agree to organ donation.

The European Union has highlighted the lack of organs for transplant and the increasing number of patients on waitings lists worldwide. Its figures claim that in 2014, 86,000 people were waiting for organ donations in EU states, Norway and Turkey, and 16 people were dying every day while waiting for a transplant.

In the UK, doctors lament one of the lowest consent rates in Europe, as well as a shortage of donors from black or Asian communities. A record number of organs were donated and transplanted in the UK in 2015-16, but the rate remains short of the target of 80% by 2020. The biggest obstacle remains relatives’ opposition, who have vetoed transplants even from registered donors.

NHSBT, which is responsible for the NHS organ donor register and for matching and allocating donor organs, said it was considering further steps it could take when approaching families to ensure more potential donors’ decisions were not vetoed.

One option would be to no longer ask the next-of-kin to confirm consent or authorisation. Their permission is not required by law if someone has registered a decision to donate on the NHS organ donor register.

Families in Scotland are already required to complete a retraction form to record why they overturned a relative’s decision to donate. NHSBT said a similar form could be introduced across the UK.

Organ donation becomes mandatory in France

Childhood obesity: retailers urge mandatory cuts to food sugar levels

Leading retailers have criticised the government’s watered-down childhood obesity strategy, arguing it would be better if ministers imposed mandatory cuts to sugar levels in food rather than leaving it up to voluntary action by manufacturers.

The British Retail Consortium (BRC), representing grocers, said it was disappointed that the government would only propose voluntary reductions because that could lead to some manufacturers trying to taking advantage by retaining more sugar in their food products.

“We believe that the only way to achieve the targets that the government [has] set out is to ensure a level playing field across the food industry and previous experience with salt reduction has proven this to be the case,” said Andrew Opie, director of food and sustainability policy at the BRC.

Under the voluntary “responsibility deal” between the Cameron government and industry, some supermarkets cut the salt in own-brand products faster than others and found they were at a competitive disadvantage, Opie said.

Sainsbury’s said it supported compulsory sugar reduction targets and added that it was already removing multi-buy packs of sugary foods, which tempt people to purchase and eat more than they need. No restrictions on such promotions were in the government plan, even though they were recommended by Public Health England.

Related: Former ministers attack ‘massive damp squib’ of childhood obesity plan

“We need a holistic approach to tackle childhood obesity, including compulsory measured targets across all nutrients – not just sugar – and mandatory traffic light labelling across all food and drink products, regardless of whether they are consumed inside or outside the home,” said Mike Coupe, chief executive of Sainsbury’s.

The long-awaited childhood obesity strategy was released by the Department of Health on Wednesday, but was swiftly criticised. Food and drink manufacturers that reduce the amount of sugar in their products by 20% will escape a proposed sugar tax on soft drinks when it is introduced in two years’ time.

The strategy left out two measures that Public Health England had said would have the greatest impact on the childhood obesity epidemic: ending price-cutting promotions of junk food in supermarkets; and restricting advertising of unhealthy food to children through family TV programmes such as Britain’s Got Talent and The X Factor, as well as on social media and websites.

Two former health ministers also criticised the government’s plan to tackle childhood obesity. Dr Dan Poulter, a Conservative MP, said: “This is certainly not the ‘gamechanging’ plan for reducing childhood obesity that it had been built up to be.” Norman Lamb, a Liberal Democrat who also served in the last coalition government, said it was a “massive damp squib”.

Related: Childhood obesity: UK’s ‘inexcusable’ strategy is wasted opportunity, say experts

Jamie Oliver said the strategy was “underwhelming” because “so much is missing”. “I’m in shock,” added the celebrity chef, who was behind a campaign to improve school dinners. “The long-awaited childhood obesity strategy from Theresa May’s new government is far from robust, and I don’t know why it was shared during recess. It contains a few nice ideas, but so much is missing.

“Where are the actions on the irresponsible advertising targeted at our children, and the restrictions on junk food promotions? With this disappointing and, frankly, underwhelming strategy, the health of our future generations remains at stake,” Oliver continued.

Health experts, the food and drink industry and retailers all agree that sugar, the focus of the government plan, is not the only cause of obesity.Euromonitor, the respected data analyst, said it was unlikely that sugar was solely responsible for the obesity crisis in the UK or across Europe.

Sara Petersson, nutrition analyst, said: “In order to fight the current crisis, we will have to take on a more global approach to improving our diets. For example, our Passport: Nutrition data shows that, similarly to sugar, fat intake is also higher in diets of countries with higher overweight and obesity rates.”

Food Standards Scotland (FSS), the statutory body that advises the Scottish government, said the UK obesity strategy fell short of what has been proposed to ministers in Scotland.

“It is particularly disappointing that some crucial measures such as taking action on promotions and on advertising and marketing have been ignored,” said the chair of FSS, Ross Finnie. In January, the FSS board agreed a package of proposals, including regulation on food and drink promotions, portion-size reductions and tougher targets on the salt, sugar and fat content of foods and drinks.

Soft drinks manufacturers have been lobbying against the sugar tax since the former chancellor, George Osborne, announced it in March.

Related: Is a sugar tax enough to tackle childhood obesity? Our readers debate

“We agree with the government that obesity rates are too high, but we do not believe a tax on only some soft drinks with sugar will reduce them,” said a spokesman for Coca-Cola. “A policy focused on a single nutrient in a narrow range of products – that provide an average of just 5% of the total calories in a British teenager’s diet – is not the right response.”

Ian Wright, director general of the Food and Drink Federation, said the soft drinks tax was a “disappointing diversion from effective measures to tackle obesity”. The 20% sugar reduction in foods such as yoghurts and desserts, he said, “focuses too strongly on the role of this single nutrient, when obesity is caused by excess calories from any nutrient”.

Health experts had little positive to say, even on the proposal that children should be encouraged to do an extra hour’s physical activity every day, because of its limited impact. “Exercise is good but exercise alone will not curb obesity,” said Professor Neena Modi, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. “It would take an hour of hard exercise to work off one chocolate chip muffin.”

• This article was amended on 19 August 2016. An earlier version referred to “the 20% sugar reduction in foods, such as yoghurts, desserts, ketchup and pasta sauces”. Ketchup and pasta sauces are not foods that are subject to the sugar reduction targets, so the reference to them was removed.

Childhood obesity: retailers urge mandatory cuts to food sugar levels

Twenty Years In the past These days, The California Supreme Court Upheld Mandatory Drug Testing In University Sports activities

Twenty many years in the past nowadays, the California Supreme Court ruled in Hill v. NCAA that the NCAA’s necessary drug testing program complied with the privacy requirements in the California state constitution.

This selection reversed a lower court ruling that forbid the NCAA from requiring pupil-athletes at California schools from submitting to mandatory drug testing.

The original challenge to the NCAA’s drug testing plan was filed in 1990 by a linebacker on the Stanford football staff and the co-captain of the Stanford women’s soccer crew.  The two student-athletes argued that the NCAA drug testing demands violated Report I, Segment one of the California Constitution, which granted all California citizens a constitutional proper to privacy.

Stanford University in the end intervened in the Hill litigation on behalf of its pupil-athletes.

Stanford University in the long run intervened in the situation and argued on behalf of its student-athletes’ rights.  And each the California Superior Court and the California Court of Appeal agreed with their position — discovering the NCAA drug testing system illegal underneath California state law.

However, when the California Supreme Court reviewed the situation, it reached the opposite conclusion.

In accordance to the California Supreme Court, pupil-athletes have a diminished expectation of privacy because they already “undergo frequent physical examinations, reveal their body and health care situations to coaches and trainers, and often dress and undress in same-intercourse locker rooms.”

The court also concluded that the NCAA has ”legitimate regulatory objectives in conducting testing for proscribed drugs,” which are based on the two student-athlete security and sustaining the sanctity of college competition.

Nowadays, the NCAA continues to enforce its rigid drug testing protocol even although several facets of the NCAA’s arguments Hill seem to be to conflict with the NCAA’s a lot more recent legal positions.

Most notably, in Hill, the NCAA argued a special duty in “protecting the wellness and security of student athletes.”  By contrast, in a latest wrongful death litigation stemming from a university football player’s repeated concussions, the NCAA denied any legal duty to protect the well being and safety of student-athletes.

________________________________

Marc Edelman is an Associate Professor of Law at the City University of New York‘s Baruch School, Zicklin College of Company, exactly where he has published more than 25 law review “articles on sports law matters, such as “A Brief Treatise on Amateurism and Antitrust Law” and “The Long term of Amateurism following Antitrust Scrutiny.”

Comply with me on Twitter right here

Twenty Years In the past These days, The California Supreme Court Upheld Mandatory Drug Testing In University Sports activities