During the time of Covid, governments on all levels eagerly grasped powers far beyond any degree of reasonableness. Governors acted like dictators, issuing edicts and executive actions unrestrained by any form of check and balances. The result was a loss of personal freedom for the average citizen which can never be fully undone. That abuse of power was a disaster and most often, not founded any “science” despite the claims of the politicians.
After the pandemic however, other politicians decided to test the limits of their power in ways that were often, far worse than the abuse by governors. An example of this was a bill passed in California by the Democratic super-majority, which limited the ability of physicians and others to disagree with any form of “approved” science. While claiming to “follow the science”, the State Assembly of California threatened to “unlicensed” any physician who did not adhere to the official line on science. It was unclear who exactly determined what that official line was, what it was based on, or how it was to be communicated.
Given the record of false science that we experienced during the time of Covid, and the harm that such false science inflicted on all levels to individuals and the economy, what safeguard was in place to insure that there would not be any repeat of the erroneous directives from the individual, individuals or group that was to decide and bless the sanctified, official science? Would there at least be a grace period so that the soon to be neutered physicians, for example, could adjust their advice to their patients and were they officially freed from their Hippocratic Oath?
The more one thinks on the subject, the more one must be in awe at the nerve, the sheer chutzpah of the body of legislatures who could pass such a law. Fortunately a recent court decision has deal a blow to the egos and inflated sense of intelligence possessed by the State of California legislatures and the State Governor who so enjoy issuing literally hundreds of proclamations during the time of Covid. I invite you to use the link below to read the story of the Courts’ decision which is a decision of freedom of thought and action.
