As of right now, Americans still have the right to choose whether they want the vaccine or not. The fact that the FDA has approved Pfizer means nothing. We have the right to choose, especially when it comes to medicine that may have resulted in adverse effects in the past.
While some people feel as though the vaccine should be mandated, it’s not federal or state law. Sure, some employers require it – though there are often ways to get around that requirement, such as by showing negative test results on a weekly basis.
One judge in Illinois has taken things too far. He has forgotten that he’s supposed to be impartial. Instead, he has shoved his own liberal thoughts of the COVID vaccine on a parental support case.
Cook County Judge James Shapiro was presiding over a case regarding visitation rights. Rebecca Firlit shares custody and parenting time of her 11-year-old son with her ex-husband, whom she’s been divorced from for over seven years.
Firlit was asked by Shapiro if she had been vaccinated. When she said she had not because she had adverse reactions to past vaccinations, the judge did the unthinkable. He stripped her of all parenting time with her son until she decides to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
It’s clear that Firlit has medical reasons for not getting the vaccine. If she’s had bad reactions in the past, it would be reasonable that she wouldn’t want the COVID jab until she’s confident that she wouldn’t have similar reactions.
Shapiro is a judge, not a medical doctor. Yet, he made the decision that she should get vaccinated before having visitation rights with her son.
Getting vaccinated is not a legal requirement.
The ex-husband did not have an issue with Firlit not being vaccinated.
The judge used his own liberal views to make this decision.
As Firlit explained to Fox32, “I think that it’s wrong. I think that it’s dividing families. And I think it’s not in my son’s best interest to be away from his mother.”
Firlit has gone nearly a month without seeing her son. Instead, she’s only been able to speak to her son via video calls and the phone.
The order will be appealed on the grounds that the judge had no right to take away her visitation rights. Firlit’s lawyer, Annette Fernholz, has said that the decision was outside of the judge’s jurisdiction.
Now, could the father have argued that it was acceptable? Absolutely.
Fernholz identified that the father did not bring the issue before the court. The judge made the decision – but the father and the father’s attorney said that they would agree with the judge’s decision to “protect the child” from the mother who was unvaccinated.
The father’s lawyer, Jeffrey Leving, explained, “There are children who have died because of COVID. I think every child should be safe.”
Everything about this is far-fetched and bordering on dictating what a mother “has” to do.
The CDC has shown time and again that the likelihood of children dying from COVID is extremely low. There are more cases to show that children are safe in the care of unvaccinated parents than to show that this child is at any serious risk of death from COVID.
The judge overstepped, the father is willing to go along with the liberal way of thinking, and a mother is punished because of making a medical decision to protect her health.
This doesn’t sound like we’re abiding by the freedoms we’re supposed to have in the U.S. now does it?