By Catherine J. Frompovich

The comment period for the CDC’s Proposed Rule Control of Communicable Diseases is due by Friday, October 14, 2016, and should be filed at the CDC’s official website for that proposed rulemaking found here.

As of September 23, 2016, 9:30 PM, when I filed my 3-page complaint as an attachment because it exceeded the CDC’s 5000 character criterion for the website, there were 4,697 comments filed.

Personally, I don’t think that number of comments will be sufficient! We need at least a million comments, or more, in order to have an impact, or at least get the CDC’s attention.

Below is the Comment I made, which I want to share with my readers. I hope you can get some ideas from it that can help you in making your comment before October 14, 2016.

This probably will be the most important comment you will ever make, please don’t let Informed Consent and the Ownership of Your Body be taken away by the CDC or any government agency.

Please accept this comment as OBJECTION to the CDC’s Proposed Rule

Control of Communicable Diseases 8/15/16-10/14/16 comment period.

Proposed Rule Summary CDC Docket No. CDC-2016-0068

“Through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is amending its domestic (interstate) and foreign quarantine regulations to best protect the public health of the United States. These amendments are being proposed to aid public health responses to outbreaks of communicable diseases such as the largest recorded outbreak of Ebola virus disease (Ebola) in history, the recent outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in South Korea, and repeated outbreaks and responses to measles in the United States, as well as the ongoing threat of other new or re-emerging communicable diseases. The provisions contained herein provide additional clarity to various safeguards to prevent the importation and spread of communicable diseases affecting human health into the United States and interstate.”

______

The CDC is over-reaching in exercising its agencies powers and in direct violation of many Constitutional rights, plus other matters as expressed later in this comment.

Since the CDC’s proposed rulemaking impacts and denies basic human rights, e.g., NO right of Informed Consent, plus the DENIAL of Ownership of One’s Body, the proposed rulemaking is vigorously objected to.

Furthermore, the CDC is usurping what is the purview of the U.S. Congress, which is the ONLY legal law making entity in the United States of America.

Below is commentary regarding several human rights documents, which the CDC has not taken into Consideration, but violated , when proposing its current power grab and dragnet rulemaking!

Furthermore, I believe the CDC violates and trashes the basic human right of Informed Consent preserved by the Nuremberg Code in its proposed rulemaking and CDC, therefore, should be made accountable for even proposing to violate such basic human rights.

Human rights are universal.

A person’s basic rights are established on recognition of his human status, the inviolability of his life and the fact that he was born, and will always be, free. Respect for the values and wishes of the individual is a duty which becomes even stronger if the individual becomes vulnerable. Since the autonomy and responsibility of every person, including those who need health care, are accepted as important values, reaching or participating in decisions concerning one’s own body or health must be universally recognized as a right.

The UNESCO Chair in Bioethics INFORMED CONSENT Pg. 1

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001487/148713e.pdf

THE NUREMBERG CODE

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, ….

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

[Forced medical treatment is inhumane and degrading, especially when it interferes with and/or supersedes one’s religious beliefs regarding vaccines’ neurotoxic chemicals and heavy metals polluting one’s body, The Temple of the Holy Spirit.]

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

[Without due process and as stated in the “Agreements” in the rulemaking, CDCs proposed apprehension of individuals can be construed as arbitrary arrest and detention.]

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

[The proposed rulemaking denies individuals their right to freedom of thought, conscience and even religious beliefs if an individual’s choice to care for his/her body and well-being does not ‘match’ the CDC’s totalitarian-like dictates.]

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

CDC’s Denial of the Constitutional Right of Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus is the basic individual right against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment coming down through common law from the Magna Carta (June 15, 1215) and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Habeas Corpus legally provides for the prevention of and/or the speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for a criminal or SUPPOSED criminal act/matter, which the CDC’s proposed rulemaking for communicable diseases (FR 2016-18103) categorically sets to redefine and reclassify individuals as “ill” and, therefore, suspected ‘felons’ by implementing extremely broad and newly-defined conditions to classify an individual as “ill” and subjecting them to apprehension, quarantine, vaccination and medical procedures without the right of exercising informed consent , due process or legal recourse, and in violation of an individual’s basic human rights, resulting in the imposition of exorbitant fines for refusal of forced medical treatment mandated by the CDC under the proposed regulations.

Refer to Article 9 above and to the “Agreements” [11. § 71.40 Agreements] in the proposed rulemaking.

CDC’s excessive fines ranging from $250,000 to $500,000 [13. § 70.19 Penalties] are in direct violation of Amendment VIII to the U.S. Constitution:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

CDC’s proposed rule is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution!

CDC’s proposed rule violates Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution that provides “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 law.” No due process provisions are permitted anywhere in the proposed rule [11. § 71.40 Agreements].

Thank you for considering my comment.

Catherine J Frompovich

Consumer Health Researcher/Journalist & Author

Sept. 23, 2016

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available



Image by Natural Blaze