Don’t you just love it when some government entity acts in a manner considered “a day late and a dollar short”? Then, the public cheers and claps in celebration when the action means diddly squat. That is exactly what has happened in Texas with the Texas legislature passing SB 29 and SB 7 recently signed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott on November 10, 2023. Is it a good thing this governor signed legislation that prohibited CONvid-1984 injection mandates? Absolutely! However, when reading the bills and listening to the report on The Highwire (listen to the entire first 13 minutes but pay close attention from the 9:30 minute mark to the 10:45 mark), Jackie Schlegel of “Texans for Medical Freedom” stated the group fought for zero “carve-outs”; but, the passed legislation provides for “carve-outs”. Therefore, not all “Texans” are protected from CONvid-19 injection mandates.

Under Section 81B.002 of SB 29 addresses “mandates” for face coverings.

Sec.81B.002. PROHIBITED FACE-COVERING MANDATE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a governmental entity may not implement, order, or otherwise impose a mandate requiring a person to wear a face mask or other face covering to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

(b) The limitation prescribed by Subsection (a) does not apply to an order or mandate that relates to:

(1) a state supported living center, as defined by Section 531.002, subject to any applicable rule or guidance prescribed by the commission that conflicts with that limitation;

(2) a facility operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or the Texas Juvenile Justice Department or a municipal or county jail, subject to any applicable rule or guidance prescribed by the Commission on Jail Standards that conflicts with that limitation; or

(3) a hospital or other health care facility owned by a governmental entity, including a hospital or other health care clinic operated by or associated with an institution of higher education, as that term is defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, subject to any applicable order, ordinance, or guidance prescribed by that governmental entity that conflicts with that limitation.

According to the definitions provided in Sec. 81B.001, “government entity” means this state [Texas], a local government entity as defined by Section 418.004, Government Code, an open-enrollment charter school, or an agency of this state or a local government entity.

Section 418.004 (10) defines a local government entity as “a county, incorporated city, independent school district, public junior college district, emergency services district, other special district, joint board, or other entity defined as a political subdivision under the laws of this state that maintains the capability to provide mutual aid.”

Does this include local public health agencies? Does “State” mean public health agencies such as the Department of Public Health or the Department of Health and Human Services? The bill that was passed and signed does not say meaning the interpretation would be left to the ones who created the legislation to provide such. One could say the definition in Section 81B.001 does include those entities. But, it does not prevent the executive branch from issuing a mandate nor does it prevent mayors from doing so. Moreover, the legislation does not prohibit enforcement of any unconstitutional mandate from a federal agency.

So, while the State of Texas or a government entity so defined by Section 418.004 of the Government Code may not mandate face coverings, “carve-outs” were issued for state-supported living centers, some correctional facilities, hospitals, or other healthcare facilities owned by a government entity, including hospitals or health clinics operate by or associated with in institute of higher learning. Missing as well are private institutions of higher learning issuing mandates for attendees/students.

Considering that countless studies on the use of face masks/coverings in the community setting have shown these non-pharmaceutical interventions fail at the prevention or transmission of any illness, certain “carve-outs” may still require these to be in place for CONvid-1984 should any rise in “outbreaks” occur.

How does this protect all “Texans” from any mandate on face coverings?

Section 81B.003 covers the CONvid-1984 injection mandate “prohibition”.

Sec. 81B.003.PROHIBITED VACCINE MANDATE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a governmental entity may not implement, order, or otherwise impose a mandate requiring a person to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

(b) The prohibition under Subsection (a) applies only to the extent the prohibition does not conflict with the final rule adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and published at 86 Fed. Reg. 61555 (November 5, 2021).

According to this guide by The Texas Law Library, Health care workers at Medicare and Medicaid-certified facilities were required to be injected with the CONvid-1984 injection by February of 2022 under The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). This included hospitals, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, ambulatory surgical centers, and home health agencies as well as a host of other facilities. This “mandate” was rescinded and became effective August 2023. However, the next “variant” scare could see the reinstatement of injection mandates by CMS or a federal edict by Dictator Biden, or perhaps the release of a “new and improved” CONvid-1984 injection by the pharmaceutical industry.

How does this protect all “Texans” from CONvid-1984 injection mandates when certain Texans are carved out and placed under federal government jurisdiction?

Texas bill SB 7 addresses the issuance of CONvid-1984 injection mandates by private employers.

Sec. 81D.002. EMPLOYER CORONAVIRUS VACCINE MANDATES PROHIBITED. An employer may not adopt or enforce a mandate requiring an employee, contractor, applicant for employment, or applicant for a contract position to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment or a contract position.

Sec. 81D.003. PROHIBITED ADVERSE ACTION BY EMPLOYER. An employer may not take an adverse action against an employee, contractor, applicant for employment, or applicant for a contract position for a refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Sec. 81D.0035.ADVERSE ACTION EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, AND PHYSICIANS. (a) In this section:

(1) “Health care facility” means a facility that is a provider of services, as defined by Section 1861, Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Section 1395x).

(2) “Health care provider” and “physician” have the meanings assigned by Section 74.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

(b) A health care facility, health care provider, or physician may establish and enforce a reasonable policy that includes requiring the use of protective medical equipment by an individual who is an employee or contractor of the facility, provider, or physician and who is not vaccinated against COVID-19 based on the level of risk the individual presents to patients from the individual ’s routine and direct exposure to patients.

(c) Establishing or enforcing a policy described by Subsection (b) is not considered an adverse action under this chapter.

For all intents and purposes, one can see that healthcare facilities, healthcare providers or physicians can “establish and enforce a reasonable policy” that would include requiring face masks/coverings for employees or a contractor, physician or provider who is NOT injected with a CONvid-1984 injection.

Who defines “reasonable policy”?

The bill defined an “employer” as a person, other than a government entity, who employs one or more employees.

Again, more carve-outs. Certain “private employers” can insist on face masks/coverings for individuals who did not receive a CONvid-1984 injection. How does this protect all “Texans” and provide medical freedom?

When speaking of “medical freedom”, some of these “groups” touting medical freedom may not align with what some individuals would consider medical freedom. Let’s not slice up freedom – freedom is freedom. As a divine creation of God, He has given man the ability to decide what is to be done to his/her own body. No one gets to decide what should be done to anyone else’s body because of their place of employment, profession, status, age, or sex nor should anyone else be allowed to decide a free individual has to “ask” permission for any type of exemption. As a free individual, one has to “consent” to anything done to their own body. Any loss of bodily autonomy is enslavement. Moreover, who considers it to be “freedom” when a free individual has to petition government to stop government unconstitutional actions?

Where is the authority for any level of an establishment governing body to mandate any medical treatment to a free individual?

While the Texas State legislature attempted protection against CONvid-1984 mandates, the State of Texas maintains mandatory injection of school students with “vaccines”, with physicians able to write medical exemptions (permanent if a lifelong condition exists and only for one year otherwise) and parents able to exert religious exemptions. This certainly does not sound like “medical freedom” much less freedom. It is enslavement.

What about any type of injection for the next planned scam-demic? This legislation only addresses CONvid-1984. So, where is this freedom? It isn’t there. It really isn’t there for some of the population of Texas since carve-outs were made.

These pieces of legislation certainly would not be considered freedom by many. What is being portrayed is a governing body saying, “We have the authority to violate citizens UNLESS we make legislation to the contrary, while we decide who still has to bend to the authority we have usurped.” There is no freedom without having freedom over our own bodies. The State of Texas went along with these atrocious mandates that violated bodily autonomy – a true sign of freedom. Now, they have legislation that is a day late and a dollar short against CONvid-1984 injection mandates that are still lacking. It doesn’t uphold freedom at all. If the State of Texas governing bodies wanted to uphold freedom, it would recognize true freedom from any type of bodily autonomy violation through mandated injections.

Remember, the genie of modified RNA technology has been released from the bottle – it’s not going back in. All new “vaccines” and possibly some old ones will go the way of modified RNA technology, particularly with the increasing propensity to declare “pandemics”. And, a new set of unconstitutional, rights-violating mandates will be issued because the people keep compromising on what freedom is.