White Papers

Mandating Pediatric STD's & The Child Sex Traffc

July 10, 2006

How Does Mandating Pediatric Hep B and HPV Vaccinations Aid The Global Child Sex Traffic?

By JUDITH REISMAN, Ph.D.

The Institute for Media Education

(drjudithreisman.org)

 

 Vaccinating Neonates for Venereal Diseases

 

In 1997, an elderly pediatrician was smiling happily at the joyful parents holding their tow-headed newborn when dad suddenly looked up and asked the doctor if Tom Jr. should be vaccinated for Hepatitis B?

 

“Why do you ask,” murmured Dr. Jones.

“The nurse said it was required,” Tom replied. 

 Dr. Jones frowned and in a conspiratorial tone asked, “Will your little guy be having sex between now and age seven?”

 “What?” shouted dad. “Of course not!!!” “Well,” whispered the white-haired doctor, “why would you assault his undeveloped immune system to allegedly protect him for about seven years from a venereal disease?” 

 Research by Risbud et al. in Sexually Transmitted Infections in 1992 and a steady stream of studies confirm that Hepatitis B is a venereal disease. “[C]ommercial sex work and history of a genital ulcers were independently associated with [Hep B] underscor[ing] the need to provide HBV vaccine to commercial sex workers and their clients.”[1]

 

            Newborn babies are hardly “sex workers” or their “clients.” Yet, in 1991 USA hospitals (covertly—as without public debate or discussion) mandated Hepatitis B vaccinations of neonates born to normal, married, uninfected mothers. 

 

            The vaccine “protection” was commonly done without the parents’ full understanding of the experimental nature of this procedure or the causes of Hep B.  Like AIDS, Hep B is largely a bi and homosexually transferred venereal disease resulting from multiple partners and drug use. Newborns can only be infected by Hep B infected mothers and/or infected blood transfusions or dirty/infected needles.[2] 

 

What does mandated infant and child vaccine for a venereal disease have to do with the “UN Convention on the Rights of the Child” and the effort to legitimize and mainstream the child sex traffic?

 

 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

 

Let us consider. The UN Rights Convention, formally adopted in 1990, is still unratified by the United States and Samolia.  It is of some concern that this document was approved by The Holy See, although certainly with reservations.  “[A]cceding to the Convention…[does not commit the Holy See] to abdicating “its specific mission which is of a religious and moral character.”

 

“a) The Holy See interprets the phrase `Family planning education and services' in article 24.2, to mean only those methods of family planning which it considers morally acceptable, that is, the natural methods of family planning.”

 

"b) [The Holy See] interprets the articles of the Convention in a way which safeguards the primary and inalienable rights of parents…[especially] education (articles 13 and 28), religion (article 14), association with others (article 15) and privacy (article 16).”

 

"c) [The Holy See declares] that the application of the Convention be compatible in practice with the particular nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law (art. 1, Law of 7 June 1929, n. 11)…"

 

Echoing the concerns of the Holy See, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy G. Thompson wrote to UNESCO Director-General Koichiro Matsuura….Speaking for the Bush administration, Dr. Thompson wrote, "we find the [UNESCO] report has a preference for abortion and promotes adolescent abortion without parental and family involvement."

 

Dr. Thompson said that the report "reflects pro-abortion advocacy rather than science and evidence-based strategies for improving reproductive health."[3][3]  (Emphasis added.)

 

However, despite the Reservations by the Holy See and the Bush Administration, the Convention statutes suggest it may be criminal for parents to attempt to protect their children--or other children--from abortion, prostitution, pornography and other forms of sexual exploitation.

 

Later in this discussion, the assault on American children by mandated chemical pediatric prophylactics will be shown to fit into a design to legalize global child sex trafficking. 

 

UNESCO Would Abort “Without Parental and Family Involvement”

 

For, child prostitution is either tacitly or fully integrated in many cultures. Our 1994 analysis of 139 nations described in a mainstream homosexual travel guide ("Spartacus: ‘92/’93--The Travel Guide For Gay Men,” available in all “gay” bookstores) found 47% of 139 nations Spartacus recommended for “travel,” included the legal age of consent for sex with boys as well as the best locations, parks, streets, plazas, where child molesters might obtain young boys.[4][4] 

 

The UNESCO plan to provide abortions for adolescents “without parental and family involvement” dovetails with the Articles of the “Convention on the Rights of the Child.”  The Convention would also permit children to be sexually active without parental consent. 

 

Before we look at key Convention “Articles,” allegedly designed to “protect” children, let us understand our terms.  The Convention carefully avoids defining who a “child” is, and few Americans realize that the legal definition of “child” differs among nations. Pornography and prostitution are also not defined by the Convention. 

 

Strange. 

 

When Are the Vulnerable Young Legally Children?

 

For since both pornography and prostitution are legal in much of the world, children commonly just need to be “of age” to give consent to be used in pornography and prostitution. 

 The Internet Age of Consent (AOC) lists the official AOC in Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Malta and Mexico as 12 years old.  Japan and Canada allow children of 13[5][5] (or 14) to be “voluntarily” exploited as commercial sex commodities.  In Germany, Italy (as well as Minnesota and Iowa) children become legal “adults” for sexual service at age 14 and so on. 

 

Post the Kinseyan influence in our sex laws in the 1950s, consent in the USA was largely lowered from 18 to 16 years old.  It is still illegal however, to use any American youth in pornography under 18 years of age. [6]

 

The argument heard internationally is that since children grow up in a highly sexualized adult environment, they should be permitted to have sex without parental interference.  Under this excuse, on the evidence, closeted government pedophiles have lobbied successfully to redefine children as “adults,” legally (read “voluntarily”) available for sexual services.[7]   

 

The Convention for the Rights of the Child offers 54 “Articles” defining alleged “protections” of children’s “rights.”  We will examine a few wrong “rights” in the following brief paper.

 

The Convention Articles: “The Child Shall Have the Right…”

 

Article 13 states that, “The child shall have the right…[to] receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.”

 

What does this “right” mean for the vulnerable, naïve child?  This “right” would allow children’s access to and use of and perhaps involvement in (to ”impart”) any kind of pornography.   --“information…regardless of frontiers” -- legal in that nation. Obscene material could be publicly displayed and legally distributed to children. 

 

Article 15 protects “the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly…. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law.” 

 

And how does this “right” protect the health and welfare of the child?  With no lower age boundary given, not even the AOC, this easily could mean parents have no right to interfere with children’s activities at any age.

 

Article 16 is clearer. A child should be legally protected against “arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy.”  This means it could be “unlawful” for parents to remove their child from the company of those the parents believe, or knew, were wicked, dangerous or diseased.

 

Article 17 requires that children receive mass media access from “a diversity of national and international sources.”  The “mass media [should] disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child.” This “right” for the vulnerable and impressionable child prohibits parental control of their children’s media exposure and leaves the “benefit” to the sexperts.

 

Article 17 (e) also encourages “appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being…”

 

The guileless and unwary would assume that this Article offers sincere protection.  However, not so fast. The Charter comes under UNESCO’S rights to abortion and sex education.  Pornography could be viewed as “healthy” while teaching children Christian or Hebrew beliefs would logically be injurious.  Based on the Charter, such religious media could be forbidden as injurious.

 

What “Traditional Practices” Will The Convention “Abolish”?

 

Article 24 provides “health care,” “family planning education and services,” and the need to “abolish[ing] traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.”

 

What are the “traditional…family planning…practices” that will be abolished?  Abstinence? Chastity?  Child contraception, venereal disease vaccination and abortion are hardly “traditional” but these would logically be viewed as good child family planning and health care via what the drafters call “the application of readily available technology.”

 

Article 25 further protects the child based on “the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.”  Children must be “brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations…tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity.  UNESCO’s “gay” rights activists report:

 

In 1994, the United Nations Human Rights Committee declared that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates the right to non-discrimination and the right to privacy guaranteed in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.[8]

 

So “tolerance” and “solidarity” prohibits parental resistance to their child’s “associations” with polymorphs perverse heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals or other orientations.  By excluding no one, the United Nations Charter is also brazenly “tolerant” of children’s associations with pedophiles and pederasts.

 

In Article 31 the Charter stipulates the child’s right to “engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.”  Indeed, should “cultural life and the arts” be legally erotic/pornographic, children may be required to joyfully participate in adult directed “erotic play.”  Ridiculous? Recall Aldoux Huxley’s prediction of global erotic child training programs in Brave New World?   

 

From a neighbouring shrubbery emerged a nurse, leading by the hand a small boy, who howled as he went…What's the matter?" asked the Director.  The nurse shrugged her shoulders. "Nothing much," she answered. "It's just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play. I'd noticed it once or twice before. And now again to-day. He started yelling just now…"[9]

 

While Huxley is “fiction,” most of his predictions in 1932 have become reality.  Finally, Article 34 will “protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.”  Fair enough.  Except, what does “forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse” mean?  Article 34 explains the Convention will work to prevent:

 

(a)    the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity. (But based on this “exploitative” disclaimer, inducing or coercing children to engage in sex with other children would be legal at any time while sex with adults would be lawful at the AOC, say, age 12-15, so its OK.)

 

(b)    the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;   (But based on the exploitation disclaimer, when prostitution is “legal” -- largely worldwide and in Nevada – prostitution is neither “exploitive” nor “unlawful,” so OK.)

 

(c) the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. (But “exploitive” is a disclaimer.  This implies there are artistic, non-exploitive pornographic performances and materials that are OK.)  [Emphasis added above.]

 

One of the many institutional organizations working for worldwide legalization of prostitution writes:

 

Prostitution is LEGAL (with some restrictions that aren't that bad) in Canada, most all of Europe including England, France, Wales, Denmark, etc., most of South America including most of Mexico (often in special zones), Israel …