Man, can you all believe it has been a week since a blog entry!

And to think, just under 4,935,866 laws have changed since last week, all by executive order!!!  Meh, that whole silly “state legislature” and “checks and balances” was stupid anyway…

Here we are… day number 281 of COVID, and it would appear as of 12/6/2020, Gallup Polling has reported that approximately 60% of Americans are in favor of the COVID-19 vaccine [1]. So much for all those staunch brave Americans who have taken the position that this is where they will draw the line, that THIS WILL NOT STAND!!

Yea… whatever bro.

This country is filled with snowflakes.

People talk a lot of shit until someone says you can’t get on a plane to go to your favorite vacation spot, or your union says that they will actually NOT pay you if you do not get the vaccine (which quite frankly is super illegal—but for some reason, not in 2020).

So, now that the media has done a fantastic job in scaring all of you about how deadly COVID is, and now that your union leaders have basically demanded you get the vaccine or risk losing your job, losing your ability to support your family, because you know—the risk of NOT taking the COVID vaccine for a virus with a 99.99% survival rate is far too great, but the risk of restricting your ability to work and feed your family, and the slow death associated with starvation, living on the street, the 40% increase of domestic violence, and the destruction of the family at home, no, no, no… all that is ignored, you are ALLLLL ready to comply and take the now suddenly safe and logical vaccine!

The science is settled people…

Anyway—now that this going to become a reality because all of you people are flakes and will give in, we really should line up our defenses here for those who want to oppose this, and still believe that the law, at some point in time, will come to its senses and promote the original values of our constitution, which is one of freedom, individual rights and liberties, the right to conduct our business as we deem fit, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, ensuring us the right to natural law and autonomy.

While there seems to be an infinite number of defenses to oppose mandatory vaccinations, and as a culture right now, we seem to be focused on overturning Jacobson, keep in mind there are literally hundreds of other ways you can go about this, and protect yourself from this unnecessary, unconstitutional and unfair intrusion on your sovereign body.

Of course, whether or not the Courts will pay attention is another story, however, rest assured there is no lack of proper stare decisis to help support your case and rid you of this particular tyranny!

Your Constitutional Right to Bodily Integrity

You’ll see terms thrown out there, such as “right to bodily integrity”, “14th Amendment bodily integrity”, “liberty interest bodily integrity”, and “substantive due process bodily integrity.” While they all sound fancy and smart, what do they really mean? What does it mean to have a “constitutional right to my body, and bodily integrity?”

Recall the pro-abortion movement, and the slogan – “MY BODY, MY RIGHT!!” This was the calling card all those who were against government restrictions on abortion.  But to understand this, lets discuss what this is really saying…

For a brief moment, lets discuss what the Constitution says about “personal liberty.”

The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has taken the position that it a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.

A good example of a concept that was not mentioned in the Constitution, or Bill of Rights is interracial marriage, which was illegal until 1967. But for the SCOTUS, there may have never been the declaration that substantive due process rights and due process under the 14thAmendment would apply to that situation.  Thus, an individuals right to marry who they so desired, was considered a realm of personal liberty, protected by the Constitution.

It was also understood by the SCOTUS that neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marked the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.

In 1992, it was settled that the Constitution places limits on a State’s right to interfere with a person’s most basic decisions about a litany of things such as family, parenthood, and bodily integrity.

The concept of bodily integrity is, in its most simple form, defined as the right to be free from intentional injury inflicted by a state actor or unjustifiable government interference.

Certainly, the SCOTUS has held that no 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.

Big Idea.  Every Single Human Being of Adult Years and Sound Mind Has a Right to Determine What is Done With Their Bodies!

The Court goes on to say that every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body. The law has always taken this position—

  • A surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages;
  • The development of the informed consent doctrine has become firmly entrenched in American tort law;
  • The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent was applied, and that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse any treatment, even if it is to their detriment.

A person has a right of privacy grounded in the Federal Constitution, under the 14th Amendment, and that right of privacy extends to their ability to terminate treatment. Recognizing that this right is not absolute, however, courts balance it against asserted state interests (i.e. as in a states interest to protect their residents life), but the state’s interest weakens and the individual’s right to privacy grows as the degree of bodily invasion increases. There is no reason why important individual interests should be afforded less protection simply because the government finds itself in the position of defending them.

So the question becomes, how do you determine if the governmental intrusion was “unjustifiable?”

Big Idea.  Unjustifable Interference and Intrusion is One That is Offensive to Human Dignity!

It would appear that the case law points to a second element to explain this, and in order for the interference to constitute a violation of one’s bodily integrity on grounds of unjustifiable interference, which is a violation of an individual’s substantive due process right, the state action at issue must “fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.”

Official conduct “shocks the conscience” where it is “outrageous and egregious under the circumstances; it must be truly “brutal and offensive to human dignity.”

While negligence is categorically beneath the threshold, conduct exhibiting “deliberate indifference” to harm can support a substantive due process claim” under the right circumstances.

Being confined to staying home? Being forced to wear a mask that clearly states directly on the box “this will not provide any protection against COVID,” being told that we should all be vaccinated for something that has been known to have severe and significant side effects, such as infertility, and even death, and shown as early as Phase 1 of the clinical trial stages? Certainly each of these is a brutal and offensive charge against human dignity.  There is one thing I also would like you all to keep in mind.  When you make the conscious decision to say, “oh this isn’t that bad” (i.e. being limited to 10 people in your home), you are essentially watering down this position by creating situations where they can take away your rights piece by piece– because how can it be a “brutal and offensive infringement on human dignity” if it “isn’t that bad?”

But going back to the original point—

If the concept of bodily integrity is, in its most simple form, defined as the right to be free from intentional injury inflicted by a state actor, then how is this even an argument when there are clear side effects shown and associated with the vaccination? And even more obvious is that if the vaccines work on the same principle as your own body’s immune system, what justification is there to permit someone to have their body invaded with extremely harmful toxins, which are also part of the vaccine.

It is also worth noting that governments (specifically the UK and it’s Department of Health and Social Care) are granting pharmaceutical manufacturers legal protection and immunity from being sued, in exchange for enabling its coronavirus vaccine to be rolled out before testing is completed in full, you know.. just in case of any problems with the vaccine [2].

Sounds Safe!


So lets go through the talking points:

  • You have a substantive due process right under the 14th Amendment, which applies such rights to the states, to Bodily Integrity.
  • Bodily Integrity is defined as the right to be free from intentional injury inflicted by a state actor or unjustifiable government interference. See Lombardi v. Whitman, 485 F.3d 73 (2007).
  • While the right is not absolute, the general idea is that the state’s interest weakens and the individual’s right to privacy grows as (a) the degree of bodily invasion increases, or (b) the unjustifiable interference is one that is so shocking to contemporary conscience, that it is a “brutal and offensive” assault on “human dignity.”
  • The fact that the vaccine has shown to have links to infertility, acute and very high fevers, fainting and passing out, even death in someone—to the point where the large manufacturers are getting immunity from liability, is a sign that perhaps it isn’t as safe as we are led to believe.

So it would appear, while I can posture a hundred arguments why this is unconstitutional, the fact that this is an unconstitutional assault on your substantive due process right to bodily integrity is just another arrow in the quiver.

If there only was a certain Court out there that would be willing to push back on this!

Try not to drink up too much of the Koolaid people—you probably wouldn’t want to stain your mask anyway.****

Yours in Love, Law and Lifts.

The Protein Prosecutor.

*** Oh, I kid– it isn’t like those masks were doing anything anyway!!