Editor’s note: the author alludes to large donations made by PACs to the political campaign of Becca Balint. Further explanation: Federal Election Commission documents show that Nishad Singh, a U.S. citizen living in the Bahamas, donated $1.1 million to the LGBTQ Victory Fund Federal PAC. The former Facebook software engineer is listed as Director of Engineering for FTX, a cryptocurrency firm. His was the only donation above $10,000. The PAC gave the Balint campaign $991,000.
by Alison Despathy
Becca Balint is riding a tsunami and tsunamis cause massive damage and destruction. Every time I hear her speak, read her writing and check her actions – the only conclusion is doublespeak.
In April, Balint stated “We need to tax the hell out of fossil fuel companies…”
And then she turns around and votes for the Clean Heat Standard (H.715) which was fortunately defeated but was a carbon tax and would have ultimately taxed the people and small businesses of Vermont.
In the same sentence she has said she supports vaccine mandates and informed consent. You pick it, Senate Pro Tempore Balint – you cannot have it both ways. These are antithetical. You either respect and promise to uphold informed consent and an Individual’s fundamental human right to make private, personal healthcare decisions, a right enshrined in the Nuremberg code of 1947 which specifically states among many other essential points,
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.”
OR you support vaccine mandates and will make a deal with the devil for the people in that one must engage in a social contract with Big Pharma in order to function in our free society and have access to employment, education and entertainment etc.
Speaking of Big Pharma- on Balint’s website – there is recognition that Big Pharma is responsible for the opioid crisis and price gouging yet support still remains for forcing the people to experiment on themselves and undergo an experimental Big Pharma injection by an industry notorious for criminal activity.
Regarding Balint’s vote on Prop 5 and personal reproductive liberty- what if I hold deep concerns regarding fertility and reproductive system risks for myself or my children with the Covid vaccines? These were rushed and there were no long term impacts and complications accessed especially since the clinical trials were short and unblinded.
Is my right to personal reproductive liberty supported in my rejection of the Covid injections? Also if Prop 5/Article 22 is actually about personal reproductive liberty why is the sentence “unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” included in here? This clearly allows the state the ultimate authority in decisions relating to reproduction or at least creates a case.
I respect the idea of standing up for the underdog as expressed on Balint’s website. This is a laudable goal and we must always strive to ensure that those who are struggling and need help receive support and empathy. There were many people in this state who chose not to get vaccinated for many different private, personal reasons. These were some of the underdogs over the last several years- support, conversation and respect for these decisions was nonexistent. Recognizing and aiding the underdog and those who were being wrongly blamed, shamed and discriminated against was the right action during the Covid crisis.
It also doesn’t add up when Bernie Sanders endorses a candidate who received over $600,000 from Political Action Committees (PACs).
The people deserve clarity. There is too much at risk. Are you for the people or not? No more doublespeak please.
The author is a clinical nutritionist in St. Johnsbury and an Independent candidate for Caledonia-Washington House Representative.