‘Transaction denied’: Get ready for credit card that cuts off spending once you hit your CO2 max

Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news.  Subscribe now.

(LifeSiteNews) — The company that created a credit card to track your purchases’ CO2 emissions is set to launch a “premium” version of the card that cuts off your spending as soon as you hit your “carbon max.”

This is the latest of many schemes to force major changes in human behaviour to allegedly lessen global warming. Social scientist and author Steven Mosher has called the global warming movement a “giant propaganda effort” and “the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on the family of man.”

Doconomy has partnered with Mastercard and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to create technology for the everyday consumer that “connects the purchase price of a product with the effect on the planet measured in Kg CO2, and then recommends the amount to offset – practically putting a price on carbon,” as the Doconomy website explains.

The DO credit card works hand-in-hand with a phone app, launched in April 2019, that quantifies the CO₂ emissions generated from each credit card transaction. The website introduces the card with video footage of whitewashed, typical consumer goods floating, like trash, as if through space, each labeled with a carbon emissions number.

The back of the card reads underneath the signature authorization area, “I’m taking responsibility for every transaction I make to help protect our planet.”

Doconomy will soon release a “premium” version of the credit card, called DO Black, touting it as “the first credit card ever to stop you from overspending.”

Measured against the UN goal of cutting carbon emissions in half by 2030, DO Black “comes with a monthly tCO2e limit, ensuring that we stick to the UN-2030-recommended cuts in carbon,” the website reads. 

“Instead of introducing a premium credit card with benefits that typically encourages further consumption, Do Black only has one essential feature – a carbon limit. The core purpose is the ability, not only to measure the impact of your consumption, but also to bring it to a direct halt,” the company stated.

The website currently features a sneak peek of the message the card user will be met with as soon as they hit their carbon max, complete with a red exclamation point warning: “Transaction denied! Carbon limit reached.”

Nathalie Green, the CEO and co-founder of Doconomy, views the card as a critical need: “We all need to come to terms with the urgency of the situation and rapidly move towards more responsible consumption. With Do Black there is no more excuses. Through our collaboration with UNFCCC and Mastercard, Do will enable people to do their part to contribute to the carbon reduction goals of 2030 and onwards,” she

The company revealed that they have partnered with the UN to participate in five “carbon dioxide reducing efforts,” or CO2 “offset” projects. Doconomy’s “climate smart savings account” also currently has a half-percent interest rate where “0.4 goes to our economy and 0.1 goes to the planet,” as “compensation” for the carbon impact.

As a company, Doconomy doesn’t limit itself to the creation of the DO credit cards but provides tools, using their “Åland Index,” to help other financial service providers and companies assess the “climate impact” of digital financial transactions, particular products, and even entire personal “lifestyles.”

Their goal is ambitious: “bring about structural change by rewiring the financial system,” as their website reads. Their services are already being used by the bank Klarna, which is providing “carbon impact calculations on all transactions by all users” through Doconomy’s Åland Index. This is being described as “the largest initiative ever taken by a bank in educating its users on the impact of consumption.”

While the card is currently being advertised for voluntary use, Marc Morano, founder and executive editor of what leftists call the “climate change denial” website Climate Depot, has predicted that this voluntary phase will have its own expiration date: 

“This CO2 monitoring credit card will begin as a ‘voluntary’ measure with no ‘mandate.’ But how long until this CO2 card will be mandated by big corporations in collusion with governments? Given how the climate activists are aping the COVID lockdowns, expect this credit card to be mandatory under a ‘climate emergency.’”

Morano has noted that the DO card “follows on the heels” of an August 2021 Nature study “calling for ‘carbon allowances’ that would monitor individuals’ CO2 emissions through smart meters and tracking apps.”

He warned readers, “Get ready for a Chinese-style social credit system scoring when it comes to your personal spending habits.”

In response to a college professor’s “radical” proposal, shared by NPR, that people need to have fewer children because of the “prospect of climate catastrophe,” and that we need to decentivize procreation with a “carbon tax” on children in wealthy nations,   Morano commented:

“U.S. environmentalists are taking a page from China’s mandatory one-child policy even as China abandons the policy. If these wacky climate activists believed their own literature they would realize that ‘global warming’ may lead to less kids!”

Steven Mosher agrees that the ultimate goal of global warmists is to dramatically decrease the world’s population. “They cheered China’s one-child policy from the very beginning,” he noted.

“I did a historical study of climate change in China, which shows that the climate in China 2,000 years ago was several degrees warmer than it is today,” Mosher said, adding, “And of course that was a long time before we started hearing about climate change and global warming.”

“We had global warming and ice ages a long time before human beings invented the internal combustion engine, and a long time before there were a million or us running around the planet giving birth to little ‘carbon dioxide emitters,’“ he quipped, quoting how climate change activists refer to children.

Jack Hellner, writing for the American Thinker, has noted that news outlets have been fear mongering about a climate crisis for decades — even a century — only to have their predictions fall flat, time and again.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support … the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution … by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half …”

Despite their use of fraudulent claims by climate change alarmists, such as that walruses shown in a documentary were throwing themselves off a cliff “because of climate change,”  the World Economic Forum (WEF) has seized upon the climate change narrative to help drive its Great Reset agenda.

The WEF’s virtual Davos summit of 2021, for example, has framed climate change as an “urgent threat demanding decisive action,” including “comprehensive,” short and long-term “climate actions in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement” by both private and public bodies. These goals include “greener” (even if less profitable) business practices with lower CO2 emissions, to be enforced by international authorities.

Such practices are already being pushed in the name of the so-called “climate emergency” by public officials like Justin Trudeau, whose Liberal Party’s “climate plan” would introduce more carbon taxes and target Canada’s oil and gas sector, such as by banning the sale of new gas-powered vehicles from 2035 onward.



Source link

An Inmate Allegedly ‘Leaking Blood All Over’ Was Denied Medical Treatment for Hours. The Prison Guard Gets Qualified Immunity – Reason.com

A prison guard who opted not to ensure prompt medical care for an inmate with a broken hand and a partially severed tendon is entitled to qualified immunity and thus cannot be sued over the incident, a federal court ruled last week.

The doctrine of qualified immunity requires that, in order to hold certain government actors accountable in civil court, plaintiffs must furnish a prior court ruling where the exact misbehavior they’re alleging has already been explicitly ruled unconstitutional. If they’re not able to do so, state officials—from cops to prison guards to college administrators—are sometimes able to violate your constitutional rights without any recourse.

It’s a standard that requires a devotion to myopic detail. Here, there were a few factors distinguishing the allegations from prior court decisions, including the location of the injury and the amount of blood shed.

In October 2014, Charles Wade, then an inmate at United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, injured his hand and was escorted on a 10-minute walk from the kitchen to a holding cell by Captain Gordon Lewis. Wade says that over the course of that walk, he was “leaking blood all over” and left “a path of blood,” but that his requests to go to the infirmary were ignored. He would stay in the holding cell for several hours before receiving any attention from a prison nurse. His injuries eventually worsened: Though he put in a request for help after his hand began to swell, staff did not tend to him until a day later when he flagged an officer and told a nurse his pain was registering as a ten out of ten. He ultimately required hospital treatment outside the prison.

In awarding Lewis qualified immunity, the 11th Circuit made a few distinctions from previous case law. “In [a prior ruling], the plaintiff suffered an injury to his head,” wrote Judge Elizabeth L. Branch, “whereas here, Wade suffered an injury to his hand.” She also noted that “the quantity of blood is different,” because the defendant in a previous case had “blood soaked [on] his clothing [and] pooled on the floor.” Also different is the location of the plaintiff: Wade was in a holding cell, sitting three feet from the infirmary, whereas the plaintiff in the preexisting precedent was in a hospital.

“On the one hand, this seems to be a pretty garden-variety application of qualified immunity,” says Clark Neily, vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute. “On the other hand, it underscores one of the most pernicious aspects of the qualified immunity defense, which is to take cases where reasonable people may plausibly disagree about the culpability of the government defendant and ensure that those disagreements are resolved not by ordinary citizens sitting as a jury—the way the Constitution, the Founders, and centuries of Anglo-American common law provide—but instead by a bunch of government employees who are disproportionately drawn from the ranks of prosecutors and other courtroom advocates for government.”

But whether or not Lewis violated Wade’s rights is still a matter of debate, and it will unfortunately remain that way, as the 11th Circuit chose not to make a ruling on it for subsequent defendants. We’re told that victims of government abuse need to find the perfect court decision to hold the state accountable, yet the federal courts often decline to set those very precedents.

It’s “entirely possible” that damages weren’t appropriate, adds Neily. The story isn’t exactly sympathetic: Wade says he sustained the injuries from cutting open a can of vegetables; others contend it was because he had punched another inmate in the face moments prior. But should such a determination be up to a jury? “The Founders were committed to the proposition that disputes between citizens and government—whether civil or criminal—should generally be resolved by ordinary citizens, not government mandarins,” says Neily. “Qualified immunity represents a repudiation of that ancient wisdom and a blatant act of judicial policy making.”

There are several instances of rogue prison guards receiving qualified immunity. There was the group of correctional officers who received the protection after locking a naked inmate in two cells over the span of several days: one with “massive amounts” of human feces covering the walls, and the other with sewage bubbling up from a clogged floor drain. In another case, a guard pepper-sprayed an prisoner, admittedly for no reason at all.

The Supreme Court, which legislated qualified immunity into existence, has been hesitant to fundamentally reconsider the doctrine as a whole. But in two highly unusual moves, it overturned both of the above cases within the last several months, allowing the victims to plead their cases where the Founders intended: in front of a jury.



Source link

President of Brazil denied entry into New York pizza place because he’s unvaccinated

Powerful nations of the world, including China, the UK, and Canada are discussing plans to require so-called ‘vaccine passports’ as a condition for travel, and possibly to restrict entry to shopping and entertainment venues.

Israel has already put in place a system to discriminate against those who choose not to take the COVID vaccine, and, in the United States, Joe Biden has signed a new executive order which could pave the way for the implementation of a ‘vaccine passport’ system. [See more below.]

This kind of medical dictatorship must be resisted, and therefore, we must act quickly before these authoritarian notions take root and spread!

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to SAY NO to government ‘vaccine passports.’ Tell your legislators to respect your freedom not to vaccinate without fear of repercussion.

People should not have to live in fear of government retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It would be intolerable and immoral for the government to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping, go to a high school soccer game, travel on public transport, or visit their relatives who live in a different part of the country, or overseas.

Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.

So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished, restricted, or tracked for refusing an experimental vaccine.

Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.

Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.

We will no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question. And, neither can we accept the dictates of some doctors who seem detached from reality and from science.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which asks national political leaders (as well as state and provincial legislators in the U.S. and Canada) to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and NOT introduce ‘vaccine passports,’ or any other system which would discriminate on the basis of taking the COVID vaccine.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

‘Biden executive order directs government to evaluate ‘feasibility’ of vaccine passports’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/biden-executive-order-directs-government-to-evaluate-feasibility-of-vaccine-passports

‘China lobbies WHO to develop COVID vaccine passports for all nations’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/china-lobbies-who-to-develop-covid-vaccine-passports-for-all-nations

‘UK advances plans for vaccine passports to travel, enter stores’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-advances-plans-for-vaccine-passports-to-travel-enter-stores

‘Canada’s health minister: Gov’t ‘working on the idea of vaccine passports’’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadas-health-minister-govt-working-on-the-idea-of-vaccine-passports

‘European Commission president plans to introduce vaccine passports’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/european-commission-president-plans-to-introduce-vaccine-passports

‘Israel’s ‘Green Passport’ vaccination program has created a ‘medical Apartheid,’ distraught citizens say’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/israels-green-passport-vaccination-program-has-created-a-medical-apartheid-distraught-citizens-say

‘LA schools to track every kid using Microsoft’s ‘Daily Pass’ COVID app’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/la-schools-to-track-every-kid-using-microsofts-daily-pass-covid-app



Source link

FLASHBACK: Chris Cuomo Denied Sexually Harassing ABC Women in Secret Audio

CNN blowhard and Prime Time host, Chris Cuomo was publicly accused of sexual harassment by former ABC executive producer Shelley Ross in The New York Times on Friday. She was spurred on by Cuomo’s defense of his brother amid sexual misconduct scandals. Cuomo admitted they had the interaction, but in a heated audio recording secretly captured by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, he denied such accusations and raged at the women making them and those digging into his past.

According to Ross’s account, “he walked toward me and greeted me with a strong bear hug while lowering one hand to firmly grab and squeeze the cheek of my buttock.” He even bragged to her: “I can do this now that you’re no longer my boss.”

It was the kind of action he would grow indignant about in his denials to Cohen, some 15 years later.

Over a year ago, on September 1, 2020, Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson played the audio in which Cuomo flew into a rage at the suggestion of sexually harassing women at ABC, going after the reporters trying to look into the accusations:

CUOMO: Do you know how many f-[bleep] phone calls I’ve gotten from people at ABC who say that reporters are calling and lying about things they heard about me to try to get stories about me when I was at ABC? Guys calling and saying, “I heard he was the Charlie Rose of ABC. He used to invite women to the hotel and open his, you know, bathrobe.” Do I look like the kind of f-[bleep] guy who’s got to do that?

COHEN: Sure, why not? But you’re in —

CUOMO: So I really have a good source that says that he forced one woman to have sex. I just want to know if you’ve ever heard anything like that. There is no woman.

“There is no woman.” Really Chris?

 

 

In a comment to The Times regarding Ross’s accusations, Cuomo admitted that the interaction occurred. “As Shelley acknowledges, our interaction was not sexual in nature. It happened 16 years ago in a public setting when she was a top executive at ABC. I apologized to her then, and I meant it,” he said.

But further in the audio he lashed out at any woman who would make accusations against him, suggesting they were making it all up:

Women who do work, they’re saying, “oh, yeah, you know, some of these men” — and naming me with other guys, you know, we bumped into each other once in the elevator and he put his hand on my shoulder and he made me really uncomfortable. I mean, what the f-[bleep]?

These were the guys who wanted credit for telling his piggish brother to be contrite with his victim in public statements. Now we know what he thinks behind the scenes.

“When Chris and Michael get together, they can let their hair down and be themselves, so Chris spares Michael the #MeToo lecture,” Carlson pointed out. “Instead, he says and we’re quoting here, ‘I mean, what’s the F?’”

Will anyone else step forward? Will Cuomo address the accusations on his show? Is his career on the line? Only time will tell.

The transcript is below, click “expand” to read:

Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight
September 1, 2020
8:45:28 p.m. Eastern

[Cuts to video]

CHRIS CUOMO: You know, I’m always careful when I talk to media, you know?

MICHAEL COHEN: Right.

CUOMO: Do you know how many f-[bleep] phone calls I’ve gotten from people at ABC who say that reporters are calling and lying about things they heard about me to try to get stories about me when I was at ABC? Guys calling and saying, “I heard he was the Charlie Rose of ABC. He used to invite women to the hotel and open his, you know, bathrobe.” Do I look like the kind of f-[bleep] guy who’s got to do that?

COHEN: Sure, why not? But you’re in —

CUOMO: So I really have a good source that says that he forced one woman to have sex. I just want to know if you’ve ever heard anything like that. There is no woman.

COHEN: Right.

CUOMO: There is none of that.

COHEN: So here’s the problem.

CUOMO: Women who do work, they’re saying, “oh, yeah, you know, some of these men” — and naming me with other guys, you know, we bumped into each other once in the elevator and he put his hand on my shoulder and he made me really uncomfortable.

I mean, what the f-[bleep]?

COHEN: It’s a problem. And now you saw —

CUOMO: So, I am careful with the media always. I’ve always told you, the media is not your friend.

COHEN: No.

[Cuts back to live]



Source link

UPDATE: Husband & father dies after being denied ivermectin by hospital

Help this widow support her children & take legal action: www.lifefunder.com/ivermectin

(LifeSiteNews) — An Alabama man whose doctor dismissed pleas that he be given ivermectin died just nine days after being admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

Todd Abbott, 43, died Friday at UAB Medical Center West in Bessemer, Alabama, after doctors refused to honor several appeals by his wife to have ivermectin administered to him. Abbott, a father of two teenage daughters, was later transferred to intensive care and put under sedation while on a ventilator.

Tragically, the man’s condition worsened as his kidneys shut down, fluid built up in his lungs and a blood clot developed in his leg.

Melissa Abbott, Todd’s wife of 19 years, is now left to pick up the pieces after losing her husband in such devastating circumstances.

“I’ve never felt so much pain. My heart is breaking into pieces. The joy has been ripped from my life,” Melissa told LifeSiteNews. “So now, I’m supposed to know how to move on and raise our teen daughters at such a precious age for a father to be around …”

Melissa did everything possible to have other treatments such as ivermectin given to her husband, even engaging a law firm to persuade the hospital to take action, but from the outset she felt the doctor treating Todd “spoke disrespectfully” and dismissively to her.

“I also have overwhelming anger for the medical system and the doctor who treated my husband and, up to the day he died, still refused to give him the Ivermectin and told me he wasn’t going to discuss it,” she explained.

Help this widow support her children & take legal action: www.lifefunder.com/ivermectin

Melissa had told LifeSiteNews last week, before her husband’s death, that she felt “like a prisoner” and that the doctors were “the wardens” due to their refusal to administer ivermectin to her COVID-stricken husband.

The bereaved mother now plans to seek further legal help in trying to ensure doctors at the hospital learn from her husband’s death, so that no other family has to experience the loss the Abbott family has.

“The night before, my husband had been doing pretty good and his stats were looking good … the next morning they said his lung had collapsed, his heart rate dropped and his oxygen was at 50-60%,” she told LifeSiteNews. “I went to say my goodbyes with my father-in-law and brother-in-law … I didn’t want our daughters to see him in the state he was in … it’s the worst thing to ever endure. I was with him when he passed away.”

“The doctor was always very grim and seemed to feed off of giving me the worst news … every time I asked about trying the ivermectin he would immediately shoot it down, saying we weren’t going to talk about it, like he had all the rights to my husband’s health,” she continued. “I am looking into my options for legal rights in regards to my husband’s health care or actually lack thereof.”

Melissa is also faced with the daunting task of having to provide for their two children, Carissa and Ava, without the help of the hardworking man she loved so dearly.

“This is the worst thing I’ve ever had to endure and don’t know how I will ever go on, while trying to raise our daughters alone,” she said.

Todd’s obituary says that he “lived his life never meeting a stranger, while blessing people with his infectious smile.”

“You knew you were in his circle of friends if he called you buddy. He truly was a servant of the Lord working as a Roadmaster for Watco Railroad and doing for others less fortunate, whether it was handing out food on the weekend or participating in a building project for someone in need,” the tribute continues. “He was never afraid of hard work. Todd loved God, his family, Alabama Football, and hunting with friends. If you were blessed to know Todd, then you knew you had a friend for life who would do anything for you.”

An intensive care specialist and member of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) last month said ivermectin was the drug that “could end the pandemic.”

“There is just a mountain of evidence supporting its use and it is being used effectively in many portions of the world, but there is a lot of resistance to Ivermectin,” Dr. Pierre Kory told Newstalk on August 13. “In fact, there is a very strong and deep opposition in public health agencies — in the ivory towers — and that is something I have had to become an expert on.”

“This is a repurposed drug. It is cheap, it is off-patent and you can’t really make a significant amount of money off of it,” he added. “Watching what happens to a drug like that has been astonishing. It has been a lesson in life and not one that I have happily learned.”

Kory said ivermectin is being “censored and buried” because it threatens “probably the largest financial interests you can imagine,” with the WHO, FDA and European Medicines Agency continuing to claim there are not enough studies to allow for its full authorization.

“That is a tactic that they are using to very great effect,” Dr. Kory said. “They complain that there is no ‘proper’ trial as they define it. So, really, they are creating a system where only really large pharma-funded trials are recognized as valid. That is actually wrong; it departs from medicine and it actually leads to this irregular adoption of medicines.”

Ivermectin trials have so far shown “massive reductions” in mortality, hospitalization, time to clinical recovery and viral clearance times, according to Kory.

The intensive care specialist is among a growing number of experts who say these inexpensive treatments for COVID-19 are being suppressed to ensure experimental vaccines are given emergency use authorization by health authorities.

Help this widow support her children & take legal action: www.lifefunder.com/ivermectin



Source link

Denver Student Denied Religious Vaccine Exemption, Kicked From School

DENVER — A nursing student in Denver was kicked out of the University of Colorado’s medical program after the school reneged on its offer for those enrolled to seek a religious exemption over the institution’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Caroline Pinto, 27, had just entered her second semester of the nursing program at the university’s Anschutz Medical Campus when administrators began implementing new COVID-19 protocols for students who returned to campus.

Over the summer, “we were all remote, so there wasn’t much talk about COVID or anything like that, or what going back would be like,” Pinto explained, after she began the program in June. As the next semester came closer to putting students back in the classroom, however, things began to change.

On July 7, the school chancellor sent out a message that all students had to be vaccinated by Sept. 1. Several days prior, the university had assured Pinto, who had been proactive in seeking forms for an exemption, that “CU’s process allows exemptions to anyone who requests one for any reason; religious, medical or personal.”

“There is no formal documentation or proof necessary,” the school initially wrote in a July 2 email reviewed by The Federalist. “We trust our students and employees.”

Chancellor Don Elliman’s statement rolling out the vaccine mandate made clear “medical and religious exemptions are available” through a simple form, which students would need to formally file the request.

Two months later, Pinto came to campus as a second-class citizen, forced to follow a strict regimen that included a daily questionnaire and weekly testing in order to maintain enrollment. Pinto was also forced to socially distance at all times both indoors and outdoors, while wearing a mask except for when outside more than 10 feet from others. Pinto complied, and followed up with the school to ensure she remained in good standing with the university.

“I heard I was in compliance,” she told The Federalist, having followed the protocols in place for the unvaccinated. Indeed, in another chain of emails shared with The Federalist, Pinto was assured by the College of Nursing “your religious exemption from the COVID vaccination has been received and you are compliant.”

On Aug. 27 however, Pinto received another email from Fara Bowler, the director of the Clinical Education Center and Simulation for the College of Nursing, that the university’s requirements for a religious exemption had been updated. Bowler sent Pinto a more comprehensive form requiring a detailed explanation of her faith and the reasons behind her refusal to vaccinate against the novel coronavirus. Pinto had three days to submit it, which she did, outlining in more than 800 words her moral and ethical objections to taking the vaccine.

“[Johnson & Johnson] uses abortion-derived cell lines. Cell lines cultured from aborted fetal tissue are used in the development (J&J) and testing (Moderna and Pfizer) of the available vaccines,” she wrote. “As a Christian and pro-life proponent, this strongly conflicts with my beliefs and convictions.”

Pinto also raised concerns over the long-term consequences of the vaccines as someone who is immunocompromised.

“I am immune-suppressed and receive infusions every six weeks. From my research as well as discussion with my doctor,” she explained, “there is no data as to how these vaccines will affect immune-suppressed individuals over time.”

Pinto ended her submission with a list of 14 questions about the coronavirus vaccine. None were answered in the school’s response 10 days later, stating that her request for exemption was denied and alerting her that she had five days to get vaccinated. The school did not offer any reason for the denial beyond citing the American Nurses Association’s absence of endorsement for “philosophical or religious exemptions.”

On Sept. 16, Pinto was dismissed from the nursing program for her refusal to take the vaccine.

In an emailed statement to The Federalist, the University of Colorado did not offer any detailed explanation beyond repeating its policy was aligned with the American Nurses Association.

“We are prevented from discussing any students under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),” a spokesman wrote. “CU Anschutz strives to be a public health leader in Colorado and beyond and implement campus policies that reflect its values and mission.”

While the university website still maintains religious exemptions may be requested, Pinto’s experience says otherwise. The university did not respond to The Federalist’s inquiry whether the school would still honor exemption requests at all and for whom.

Though she may qualify for a medical exemption given her suppressed immune system, Pinto said she would refuse out of principle, despite having taken a low-paying full-time job and applying twice to get into the nursing program.

“I probably could have groveled and been like ‘well what can I do? How can I get around this?’ But I was like ‘no, this is insane,’” she said. “I can guarantee you if I was a black Muslim, this would not be an issue. But because I’m white and claiming Christianity, that is a problem.”

“If I don’t stand for something in this moment, I feel like I’m denying myself a growth experience, which it may be more painful than I realize once it sets in because I feel like I haven’t really processed it yet,” she added.





Source link

This Private Eye Was Denied a License Because He Criticized Police – Reason.com

Occupational licensing has already been called out for hobbling opportunity, impeding mobility, protecting established practitioners from competition, and for raising prices of goods and services. Now there’s a new reason to object to turning working in a chosen field from a right into a privilege: the withholding of licenses as a means to punish those who criticize government officials. Specifically, Maine’s Department of Public Safety is denying a private investigator’s license to Joshua Gray because he publicly condemned a shooting by state troopers.

“Gray’s problems with the Department began after he criticized the conduct of Maine police in the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Kadhar Bailey and 18-year-old Amber Fagre in February of 2017,” the Institute for Justice (IJ) notes in an announcement that it has filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on his behalf. “Believing that the shooting could have been avoided had it not been for police recklessness, Gray expressed his criticisms on his Facebook page. But when Gray later applied for a license as a professional investigator in Maine, the Department denied Gray’s application on the ground that his online criticism contained factual errors, and therefore he lacked the ‘good moral character’ required for licensure.”

Gray has a contentious history with the authorities in Maine. A long-established private investigator in Massachusetts, he was arrested in 2011 for working without a license in the Pine Tree State. Charges were dismissed by a judge who pointed out that Gray was being prosecuted under a law that didn’t exist at the time of the alleged offense. Which is to say, abusive occupational licensing enforcement played a role in his life even before the recent conflict.

So, it’s fair to assume that Gray was already on the radar of Maine authorities when he criticized state troopers’ conduct in the controversial 2017 incident. His application for a private investigator’s license might well have stuck in the craws of officials who screwed up their earlier court case against him and had the opportunity to slap a critic through regulatory means. There’s really no question that the denial was punishment for Gray’s comments on Facebook.

“In this case, the Department’s Notice of Denial shows that Gray’s application was denied because of the statements that Gray made on social media,” Maine Superior Court Judge Michaela Murphy wrote in 2019 on the way to remanding the case to the Department of Public Safety for reconsideration. “Further, the notice shows that the Department’s denial was based upon its disagreement with the viewpoints expressed in these statements. The Department reasons that Gray should not receive a private investigator’s license as the statements show that he is incompetent and lacks the necessary fitness of character. This finding is in turn based solely on what the Department characterizes as ‘materially false’ statements that Gray has made publicly. In other words, it is based on the Department’s disagreement with Gray’s publicly stated opinion that the State Trooper is a dirty cop with a history of internal affairs problems who committed murder.”

Unfortunately, upon reconsideration, officials annoyed by Gray’s comments just repeated their earlier denial of his license application. The Maine Supreme Court rubber-stamped that decision in the spring of this year, saying it was OK to deny the license because of “false, uninvestigated information that Gray presented as fact.” That is, the court agrees that it’s OK to withhold permission to work because of disagreement with what somebody says.

IJ notes that the Maine Supreme Court’s decision conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra that licensing isn’t an end-run around free-speech protections. 

“This Court has not recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority in that case. “Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.'”

But, rather than get into the legal weeds, let’s just note again that nobody disputes the point that Joshua Gray was denied a license to work as a private investigator just because his opinions offended officials. The disagreement is over whether or not it’s acceptable to punish him for his speech by denying him an occupational license. Honestly, that’s good enough reason to look askance at the whole business of requiring licenses to work. The conversion of practicing in a chosen field from a right into a privilege that can be withheld to penalize people for exercising the fundamental right to speak freely and criticize official conduct makes licensing too dangerous a barrier to permit to exist.

It’s not as if there aren’t already plenty of reasons to object to occupational licensing.

“Today, almost 30% of jobs in the United States require a license, up from less than 5% in the 1950s,” the Biden administration pointed out in July in a repetition of warnings by the Trump and Obama administrations of the damage done by requiring people to seek permission to enter trades and professions. “Fewer than 5% of occupations that require licensing in at least one state are treated consistently across all 50 states. That locks some people out of jobs, and it makes it harder for people to move between states.”

“Occupational licensing regulations sometimes have a blanket prohibition on individuals with any criminal convictions, or ‘good moral character’ clauses that allow a licensing board to deny a license for an arrest without conviction,” the Council of State Governments objected early this year. “This contributes to a large segment of the population being unable to work, even if their arrest or conviction occurred years prior to their application.”

“The higher the rate of licensure of low-income occupations, the lower the rate of low-income entrepreneurship,” found a 2015 report from the Goldwater Institute. “The states that license more than 50 percent of the low-income occupations had an average entrepreneurship rate that was 11 percent lower than the average for all states, and the states the licensed less than a third had an average entrepreneurship rate that was about 11 percent higher.”  

Occupational licensing reduces economic and physical mobility, blocks opportunity, and limits competition for those already admitted to a field, thereby reducing choice and raising prices. And now, licenses are being used as a means to punish people who exercise their right to criticize official conduct. We knew that licensing was a threat to prosperity and now we know that it endangers liberty. It needs to go.



Source link

Medical ‘prisoner’: Woman dies in Catholic hospital after being denied her rights

(LifeSiteNews) – This is one of the most shocking stories I have heard throughout the entire COVID pandemic – a patient named Veronica Wolski died at a Catholic hospital after being denied basic care and requested treatments.

In this very sobering episode of The John-Henry Westen Show, I sat down to discuss this tragedy with Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, who many of you may know as the president of Truth for Health Foundation, and Nancy Ross, Veronica’s friend and power of attorney.

Ross told me that Veronica was a dedicated and outspoken advocate for medical freedom who “hardly slept to educate people with messages of hope and of her bits of wisdom.” Nancy met her through mutual friends and were in regular contact. Then, on August 17, she received a text from her saying that she began feeling symptoms of COVID.

In fact, several days later she did test positive for the virus and was admitted into Resurrection Hospital in Chicago with COVID pneumonia, even though Dr. Vliet told me that it could possibly have been chest congestion. Instead, the “Catholic” hospital put her on a high dose of oxygen that only made Veronica’s case worse.

Veronica refused to be put on a ventilator and begged for Ivermectin, but was completely denied. Ross, as her power of attorney, also pushed for her to be allowed the treatment, only to also be denied. She had also asked to be taken to another facility.

Dr. Vliet, together with her entire team of medical and legal experts at Truth for Health, gave recommendations to Ross and Veronica on providing care at an outpatient setting, which is another request that was rejected..

Vliet stated that “what was shocking to me as a physician, knowing what the legal and medical ethics are, is that the most astounding interference was the interference and refusal to honor the patient’s request.” Vliet said she has never seen anything like this before and that it’s an example of “medical tyranny” happening throughout the United States

Furthermore, Vliet added, not only is Ivermectin, a proven treatment for the virus, being denied as medicine to patients, but other important medical cures and legal rights are being scrapped as well. “If we don’t stand up to this medical tyranny, then we are literally losing people every day because their wishes are not being followed and basic treatments are being ignored.” Vliet pointed out that hospitals are receiving money when patients are put on ventilators and given Remdesivir.

In some parting reflections on Veronica, Nancy Ross described her as “an American hero” who fought to the very end for freedom. Vliet and Ross have both vowed to make sure her death was not in vain, and to honor her by continuing her fight, being a voice for patient rights.

Please pray for the response of the soul of Veronica Wolski, and for all the work Nancy Ross, Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, and Truth for Health Foundation are continuing to do.

The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show’s YouTube channel and right here on my LifeSite blog.

It is also available in audio format on platforms such as SpotifySoundcloud, and Acast. We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well. To subscribe to the audio version on various channels, visit the Acast webpage here.

We’ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode. Please sign up now by clicking here. You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel, and you’ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content.

You can send me feedback, or ideas for show topics by emailing [email protected].

John-Henry is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.com. He and his wife Dianne and their eight children live in the Ottawa Valley in Ontario, Canada.

He has spoken at conferences and retreats, and appeared on radio and television throughout North America, Europe and Asia. John-Henry founded the Rome Life Forum an annual strategy meeting for pro-life leaders worldwide. He co-founded Voice of the Family and serves on the executive of the Canadian National March for Life Committee, and the annual National Pro-Life Youth Conference.  

He is a consultant to Canada’s largest pro-life organization Campaign Life Coalition, and serves on the executive of the Ontario branch of the organization.  He has run three times for political office in the province of Ontario representing the Family Coalition Party.  

John-Henry earned an MA from the University of Toronto in School and Child Clinical Psychology and an Honours BA from York University in Psychology.



Source link