Back When Autism was A Rare, Life-Long, Institutionalized Disorder: 1991
Ed Schultz Calls Out Sharron Angle for "Airquoting" Autism Coverage



Thank you for clarifying Kristina. The lead in that you quoted was used because the previous segments touched on homeschooling and Libertarianism. Therefore the lead in was in the context of "and speaking of...."


"Today the Supreme Court is looking at a case that would mean a lot to home schoolers and to libertarians."

That is the opening statement of the segment. That is what my comment was based on (and the theme was continued). I didn't mean to be divisive, Pamela. And I don't believe I have ever stated my political party on AofA, or whether I homeschool, or whether I watch Fox News.



You missed the point. The reference to LIbertarians was intended to make the point that no matter what your political philosophy, people go to Washington and forget why they are there and get sucked into the 'government knows what's best for us" mentality. The home school reference is historical. They are comparing the fight against allowing parents to homeschool to forced vaccination in making that point that, ultimately, parents should have the right to make decisions of their children.

The overall point of this segment is very well defined by Jay Sekulow in his very first comment, "There are a lot of people opposed to vaccination on moral or religious grounds and sometimes it's on scientific evidence but the idea that the government compels you to take a medication or vaccine and then tells you if you experience an adverse event you can not sue under typical product liability claim is ridiculous."

I could make an equally stereotypical comment about people who do NOT watch Fox news....but that would very divisive and serve no valuable point.

Jeff C.

Re Kristina,

I get your point, but I think they were using home schooling as a historical comparison. It took decades of legal fights to get the states to recognize that they can't compel parents to send their kids to government-run schools. Parents have a right to educate their kids as they see fit provided they meet reasonable standards. Today, home-schoolers have broad legal protections in all 50 states. It didn't used to be that way.

Sekulow was making the point that this fight can be won, but it will be difficult and will take time.


KDM- Sadly in this case Obama IS siding with Wyeth. The case is Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, NOT v. HHS. So if he is "picking" he's picking Wyeth in his opinion.


I think the whole forced vaccine issue should be a discriminatory act.

It's like this...
If you are white, you can go to school and be educated and live well. If you are not white, you will have to live without and education.

If your immune system can handle it, you will make it through your forced vaccines and live well. If you're immune system can't handle it, you will have to live without good health.

Where are the lawyers?


It's not just homeschoolers and libertarians who want the right to sue after vaccine injury! But I guess those are the typical viewers of Fox News, so Fox wants to pretend that this is of special interest to them.

Theresa O

Bob Moffitt, you're awesome! It was Marty (Richard Gere) in Primal Fear.

Movies aside, I'm still hoping...


How does the vaccine industry "design" a vaccine with Thimerosal, that has only been tested in the 1930's...

that they STILL refuse to test in any manner, to any modern standards...

that has been banned for vaccine use in other countries nearly 20 years ago...

and somehow DO NOT feel they "may a design flaw" in their damn product ???

If it would sell, they would bring back Thalidomide in a vial of mercury and call it a "vaccine."

Bob Moffitt

A movie character once said:

"You want justice .. go to a whorehouse".

"You want to get screwed .. go to a courthouse".

I wish I remembered the movie.


Well, all we can do is pray that the money and power that put them in their position will not interfere with common sense and decency. God Bless the Supreme Court during this time. May they find for the children and protect the future.


Sarah (from sarah with the lower case 's' :)) - I could be wrong, but I don't think this case is just tied to 'design' flaw. Its taking on the liability shield en it worth protecting vaccine production from lawsuits for the 'greater good'? And I agree patrons - we need a constitutional lawyer and I am in complete agreement that the 1905 ruling is deeply flawed) But its hard to keep mandates out of it. What I mean is, its not just the liability shield that's the problem. Its the coupling of mandates with the liability shield that makes the vaccine system so absolutely corrupt. Anyway, its hard for me to think of one without the other which is why we might be getting a bit off topic here!


Fool for a client! Exactly, and yet; the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Court will gladly send you a very thick packet as many times as you ask for it - just so you can use it for an example in filing your vaccine injury case.

I ordered it regularly!
Yes Yearly, some times twice a year if it struck my fancy.

I know it is not the government's money - it was my money I paid through tax - but what else can I do to protest???



They're playing a very dangerous game.. mandating vaccines and declaring pandemics.. it feels like we're being cornered... during the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic, Dr. Adrian Gibbs, an Australian virologist and his researchers analysed the DNA of the H1N1 virus and said the virus had to have made in lab and that there was no way it evolved naturally...

We are in the age of germ warfare...

Here's Dr. Adrian Gibbs (founder of Tamiflu)
talking about the H1N1 flu virus.


sarah - "the WHO can declare H1N1 pandemic"

Sure they can. Can't we see it coming? Just like they did last year, with the now infamous pandemic flu fraud and hysteria of 2009. Did we learn anything? Are we going to let them fool us again? This bullsh*t will never end, unless we collectively say to them ENOUGH ALREADY!



but this court case is about flawed design not about mandates.. it's very troubling to me that a serious design flaw in a vaccine would be allowable w/o concern for public health and there's no reprocussions to the manufacturer. Why?

Where is the incentive to make a quality product? there is none..,Who is policing this? They police themselves.

How come Toyota was forced to do a recall for faulty brakes but not Wyeth for producing a dangerously flawed vaccine.. why is this even being debated in court?


To clarify, the Obama "administration" is siding with the HHS and their opinions on this matter as a bigger picture issue m,ore than to say they are just "siding with Wyeth".

It is not uncommon AT all for the presidential administrations to offer opinions on Supreme Court matters (heard or arguing).

Bush and Gitmo
Reagan and matters of Civil Rights
I think every admin since has stated opinions about anything to do with Roe vs Wade.
I dont know if they issued one but Im sure the Clinton admin was opposed to the Supreme Court ruling on Paula Jones right to take Bill to court.


sarah - Could the issue of vaccine mandates be revisited today, perhaps under several different legal theories, argued in the alternative, e.g. Ninth Amendment unenumerated rights, "imminent risk of harm" or "clear and present danger" under Fifth Amendment equal protection, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection, and First Amendment interference with one's religious beliefs and right to unencumbered practice of religion?

An article titled “Vaccination: The UnGodly Practice” by Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH, Pastor Norm Franz, and Errol Owen, is well-written and VERY timely.

Arguably, the 1905 Supreme Court ruling used some outdated, conventional legal wisdom of the times, "for the greater good" utilitarianism. The input of a constitutional law scholar would be instructive.

Is the Executive Branch wagering?

Is it typical for the President to give his opinion BEFORE a Supreme Court decision? Is it typical for the President to state he is picking Industry (Wyeth)in a case concerning lifelong disability (future cases as well)? Is it typical for the President, the Executive Branch, to choose a side,like a wager in a Prize Fight?



All good ideas...the trouble with 'mandates are unconstitutional' is that its already been tried. in 1905 the Supreme Court allowed states to pass mandatory vaccination laws for smallpox for the 'greater good' stating basically that the greater good is more important than individual civil rights.

However, I do think there could be challenges brought to state laws that mandate vaccines for lesser diseases....but then again, when the CDC is allowed to declare epidemics for very small number of cases, or the WHO can declare H1N1 pandemic, then its tough because most state health laws/statutes already give wide leeway to health commissioners in 'epidemics' and pandemics. Pharma has things nicely sewn up for itself....the culmination of decades of writing law for themselves.


Patrons99 - Thank you for posting that link below. 9+ minutes explaining many aspects of the case/comments and actions of the judges. Here it is again everyone:


While I feel autism knows no political party, I am very disappointed that the Obamma administration is voicing an opinion on this Supreme court case.. if anything they should keep their mouths shut.

When they took the Oath of Office, President Obamma and the Supreme Court Justices swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.. if the side with industry and fail to uphold the Constituion and protect us from harm, then they've betrayed the oath and the American people and, as far as I'm concerned, that amounts to treason.


KDM - "This should not be a partisan issue. Both republicans and dems have a hand in this."

Well said! I completely agree with you on this point. btw - this is why I became an Independent. It's about each individual's moral values, humility, compassion, and whether they are willing to stand up and "do the right thing", according to their conscience and their faith.

Adam M

I was hoping Napolitano would way in on this. I'm becoming more conservative the the longer I Iook into these matters. I think things would be helped a lot if we as moved away from this central planning and group think under the US Publiic Health Service. Let the authority of doctors and hospitals be judged by their success or lack there of. Are we really any healthier than a hundred years ago? Than fifty years ago? For all the money thats been poured into this system (pharma / allopathic) of health care what do we have to show for it? We spend more on heath care. We're sicker than ever w/ chronic illness. AND we have our basic human rights infringed upon. Trauma care? Yah we've come along way there. I wont argue against that. I can't I'm an EMT I've seen it first hand. I've also seen the results of plain old "pill pushing". Such a waste. Pharma is going to keep pushing, and lobbying and infiltrating government regulatory agencies until we say ENOUGH! OK, I feel better now. Thanks for listening


Benedetta - "Of course the vaccine comphensation court being all for justice encourages people to file all on their own with out a lawyer. How has that worked out for anyone, just curious???"

The retainer fees and court costs alone will exhaust most people financially. Then consider the billable hours accruing in parallel within the same law firm. This is all before jurisdiction attaches and the case goes forward with discovery.

Take it from a bloodied and mauled "junk-yard dog". Don't try to represent yourself in any legal proceeding. The legal system is designed by and for judges and attorneys and is geared to humiliate and humble pro se litigants. Attorneys all have a rolodex of nasty ad hominem's to use whenever it suits them...which is often! The attorneys are right when they often say: Justice? Hah,hah,hah. There is no such thing as Justice! Legal proceedings are a rich man's sport. Certainly not for the faint of heart.

They are very right when they say something like: he who represents himself in court, has a fool for a client.


If you look back in JB's piece written a day or two ago he mention Reagan didn't wanna sign off on this.

Of course should be evidenced because they are on Fox but these two individuals have some pretty extreme right wing views at times. Their viewpoint we may agree with but will be attacked and pushed into a partisan debate.



On your link they did not say that no one was winning in the vaccine courts. She said that 90 percent of those that won in the vaccine court accept the money and go no further.

Yet, there are 5000 cases pending. There have been 5,000 cases pending for the last 20 years???

Somebody should make a point on some of these shows that the vaccine compensation court is difficult to win. You might can win if you are a FDA neurologist, your wife is a nures/lawyer, and all your friends and colleages in the medical community pitch in and help with research.

I on the other hand paid out 600 dollars for a doctor to glance at my son's medical records and then make not a medical opinion but a lawyer opinion that to hire a doctor to testify would be too expensive.


Kent Heckenlively

This is a FANTASTIC piece! I am hopeful that Judge Napolitano is right that this case garners support from both liberals and conservatives! I am so happy that our side of the argument was presented so well by these two attorneys.

All the best,
Kent Heckenlively


According to the analysis on the McNeil Lehrer News report the Obamma administration is supporting Wyeth...


sarah - good point! Could a vaccine-injured bring a supplemental claim in state or federal court under the federal declaratory judgment act, alleging that a particular state or federal vaccine mandate is unconstitutional? If so, who would have to named as the defendant in such a cause of action? I believe that anyone who has ever been vaccinated has suffered vaccine-induced injury. We may not yet have identified the proper biomarker for vaccine-induced injury. Or, perhaps we have identified the proper biomarker - consider measurement of DNA hypomethylation, we may still be clinically-silent, just waiting for the straw that breaks the camel's back.


patrons99 there is something called sovereign immunity. You can't sue the US government unless they agree to be sued. I don't see them extending an opportunity any time soon.


Jim Lehrer has also done an interesting interview on this subject. It is equally thought-provoking. Here's the link:


Fantastic coverage by Fox News and Judge Andrew Napolitano! Kudos to both!

Don’t blame the was just a case of “Potomac Fever”. He was temporarily delirious when he signed the new legislation in 1986. But look at the harm that resulted from the law.

Shouldn't parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their kids in this Country?

Lot's of food for thought here. Some of the topics covered, albeit briefly: 14th and 5th amendments - substantive due process - moral and religious grounds - home schoolers.

Whether parents have the right to sue because the government forced them to take a vaccine, does not address the bigger question, whether government should ever FORCE anyone to take a vaccine. Even with a favorable Supreme Court ruling on the right to sue, we're still not out of the woods on the latter question.

Here's my typical naive, non-attorney type, question: if the government is ever allowed to FORCE anyone to take a vaccine, doesn't that break the chain of causation, i.e. proximate cause of injury, that parents would need to sue the manufacturer? Would the parents need to sue the government, the manufacturer, or both?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment


Your comment could not be posted. Error type:



Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment


Your Information
