It’s a good thing we are neighbors with Canada, because it typically gives us a few months’ warning for the next illogical and immoral human rights violation we can expect to face in this country.

We never thought we’d be confronted with a mandate to get a prima facie dangerous product that has incontrovertibly shown itself to be infective and to cause many known injuries — over 14,000 categories referred to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. How a shot like this could still be on the market is shocking, but how something like this could be used as pretext to deny an organ transplant is unconscionable. It is already happening here in the U.S., but now in Canada, it has been codified as legally permissible, which should spur red-alert levels of policy activism here in the U.S.

Last Tuesday, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Paul Belzil ruled that an Edmonton-based transplant program was able to deny a woman a transplant for not getting the COVID shots. "I do not accept however, that her beliefs and desire to protect her bodily integrity entitle her to impact the rights of other patients or the integrity of the [transplant program] generally," the judge said. "No one has a right to receive [organ] transplants and no one is forced to undergo transplantation surgery."

I can’t speak to constitutional rights in Canada, but in America, we have rights to conscience, and anti-discrimination laws have applied those rights certainly in the context of vital public accommodations. Those rights are definitely implicated enough that they should trigger a discovery process about the shots that would reveal they currently have no benefit against this virus, convey no more immunity to the patient, and come with a number of serious risks, particularly to those who are immunocompromised. In fact, if science were to govern the matter, it would prohibit transplants using organs from those who have received the shots.

A U.K. study found 13 solid organ donors who likely died from vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia stemming from the Astra Zeneca shots just during two of the early months of vaccination in 2021. So what happened when 10 of their organs were given to recipients? "There were seven major thrombotic or hemorrhagic postoperative complications in six recipients resulting in the loss of three transplants.” One of the patients died within a day of cardiac arrest.

Here is a thread that gathers all of the evidence showing how donors who had the shots risk transferring over the thrombotic factors of the spike protein to the recipients.

For a medical professional to require this shot violates the Nuremberg Code even if it does work for COVID, which of course it doesn’t.

We could use examples from every corner of the world of “the more you inject, the more you infect,” but take a look at the latest numbers from Israel:

These are not just case rates, but rates of severe COVID ranked by vaccination status. Then there is the Canadian data itself. Alex Berenson has just gathered data from Manitoba that shows that vaccinated (but unboosted) people were about 50% more likely to be hospitalized or die of COVID than unvaccinated people, even fully adjusting for age and vaccination rates.

Nobody can look you in the eye right now and tell you that getting the current shots on the market with the current variants circulating will help rather than harm you, yet religious contentious objections are being denied.

Aside from the fact that even the private discrimination is being done under heavy governmental influence, Title II of the Civil Rights Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, clearly prohibits this. It provides that “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of ... accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” So religious beliefs do play a role in discrimination law in hospitals, which are places of public accommodation.

Either way, we cannot assume that the courts will rule properly here in the U.S. The Canadian ruling should serve as a wake-up call and spur the states to act immediately to emphatically and categorically ban all forms of discrimination for not getting Pfizer’s government-promoted private products. Several states have done so obliquely, but it needs to be done in every red state with clearly defined penalties, enforcement mechanisms, and private causes of action.

Recently, attorneys at We the Patriots USA got a Michigan hospital to back down after it demanded that a 17-year-old adopted Ukrainian girl get the COVID and flu shots before being eligible for a kidney transplant. Several months after filing a federal lawsuit, the hospital appeared to back down and place Alisa Campau into the evaluation process for getting a kidney.

However, this travesty is continuing to go on in almost every state. Brandi Harris of Peoria, Illinois, is being denied a kidney transplant at OSF St. Francis Medical Center. When she tried to assert a religious objection, she was told by the nephrologist that the Pope got the shots (Harris is Baptist, not Catholic).

Medical freedom is the new pro-life issue. Ironically, HHS is requiring states to have hospitals perform “emergency” abortions to kill babies but won’t require them to perform lifesaving organ transplants to those suffering discrimination. The time has come for conservatives to shed their phobia of discussing something that is ascribed the nomenclature “vaccine.” There are some real bioethical problems that will determine life and death if they go unaddressed.