Best tweet on vaccine mandates

Consider this.

Your boss offers you a sexual encounter. You politely say no thank you.

Your boss then says to you if you don’t have sex with him you’re fired.

So you do it in order to keep your job.

Is that consent?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
8 months ago

And – say if you are, New York State …

You speak out about this coercion. You have widespread support.

Your boss has coerced / harrassed / made uncomfortable, ten others.

They didn't all have the same experience. But they all felt afraid for their bodily autonomy, felt like their boss had no respect for what he claims to understand – Coercion Is Not Consent.

There is an outcry.

The media helps tell the world how wrong your boss's actions are, and how you deserve respect in your workplace, and in your body.

The Attorney General gets involved, in support of the victims.

Your boss is forced out.

That behavior is unacceptable, especially in a state with very vocal politics about rights, choice, workplace respect, and coercion is not consent.

Now you have a new boss. She agrees that the old boss mistreated you. You feel hopeful. There is some accountability for harrassment here.

Then your new boss proceeds to harrass millions.

Telling them every chance she gets that they need to open their bodies to what she wants. C'mon, it will be good. She'll give you bonuses.

Then she turns it up.

Says if you don't open your body to what she wants, you'll be fired.

This time, the media is on the side of your new boss. Bodily autonomy? How dare you feel entitled to that, they say.

The same attorney general gets involved again – but this time by threatening good doctors trying to offer an alternative to the dangerous, coercive, destructive world your boss and her team are insisting must be the Only Way.

This is New York State.

Eva
8 months ago
Reply to  Anonymous

exactly what happened/ happening!

Valerie O Shaughnessy
Valerie O Shaughnessy
8 months ago

RISING VACCINE HESIDENCY- MANDATORY VACCINATION – VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAMME- THE VACINE INJURY TABLE AS AMMENDED 2017 – DELIBERATE USE OF “EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA” FOR INJURY RELATED COMPENSATION AS SET OUT IN THIS DOCUMENT – VERY OBVIOUS AND BLATENT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH AND DISABILITY.
THE “EXCLUDED” SECTOR OF SOCIETY ACCORDING TO THIS DOCUMENT, ARE THOSE WITH GENETICALLY ASSOCIATED DISEASE, CANCER PATIENTS, BIRTH RELATED INJURIES/ TRAUMA. THE COHORT WITHIN THE GENERAL POPULATION WITH AN ESTABLISHED DISEASE PROCESS. NOT A SMALL ‘MINORITY’ AS CONTINUALLY REPORTED IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
PHARMACUTICAL INDUSTRY ARE ‘INDEMNIFIED’ AGAINST SPECIFIC LITIGATION BY GOVERNMENT AS ARE THE MEDICAL PERSONNEL TASKED WITH ADMINISTRATION OF MULTIPLE VACCINES.
AND THE GOVERNMENTS USE THE TABLE AS AN ACCEPTED WAY TO REDUCE DIRECT LIABILITY FOR INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF MULTIPLE VACCINE PRODUCTS PROMOTED FOR USE THROUGH PUBLIC HEALTH INIATIVES. VERY BLATENT UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE.

ALL FACTS FULLY VERIFIABLE.

Scroll to Top