New Zealand Health Officials Gain Guardianship of a Baby Whose Parents Refuse to Use Vaccinated Blood for Their Son’s Surgery By Jim Hoft Published December 7, 2022 at 10:40am 483 Comments
A New Zealand high court judge sided with health officials who sought guardianship of a baby boy after his parents refused to allow him to receive a transfusion of “vaccinated blood” for his surgery.
A guardianship of a child takes away the parents’ right to make decisions about their child’s life.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that Health New Zealand, also known as Te Whatu Ora, filed an application with the Auckland High Court on Monday to transfer guardianship under the Care of Children Act so that the baby can undergo surgery.
The parents said in an interview with Liz Gunn, a broadcaster from New Zealand, that their baby, Will, has severe pulmonary valve stenosis and requires surgery “very immediately,” but they are “particularly concerned with the blood the doctors are going to use.
TRENDING: BREAKING: Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer Colluded With Federal Agency, CISA, To Censor Election Critics - The Gateway Pundit Mentioned By Name
“The baby is not scheduled for his operation. He’s in a stable condition,” said Cole, Will’s father. “We’re not playing with our baby’s life to get a political or any movement going. We’re wanting our baby to have the surgery and we’re wanting him to have the very best of what’s available for his surgery and his future and his recovery.”
“We don’t want blood that is tainted by vaccination,” the father said. “That’s the end of the deal – we are fine with anything else these doctors want to do.”
According to New Zealand Herald, there were reportedly 20 potential unvaccinated blood donors who were willing to donate, but the New Zealand government did not approve this.
“New Zealand’s health authorities and blood service argued that allowing the parents to refuse vaccinated blood would set a dangerous precedent, in which patients could demand to pick and choose where their blood came from,” the Guardian reported.
And then that whore of a newspaper, the Guardian, repeats the two lies that the toxxine is "safe and effective". Sheesh, how can they live with themselves?
dangerous precedent, in which patients could demand to pick and choose where their blood came from
What is the problem with that? If I have a donor volunteer, does not that free up the other blood for someone else? Sounds like they are more worried of the general public knowing and acting on the fact the vaxx is unsafe.
And then that whore of a newspaper, the Guardian, repeats the two lies that the toxxine is "safe and effective". Sheesh, how can they live with themselves?