Violations, Constitution, Charter, Criminal Codes
VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND CHARTER RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AND CRIMINAL CODES by Donna Young
- Logically, no democratic government, or their medical licensed agents or politicians, can rule over the woman's body, or over her reproduction or uniqueness to give birth, where, with whom, or how. That is something sacred to all women choosing motherhood.
- It is the mother's legal duty for the security of person, the fetus/infant, to see that she births with knowledge and care of a prudent person so the child is not harmed and that the persons whom she has assist her is competently and ethical trained so they do not harm the child.
- That is not happening to the training of doctors, midwives, medics that are being directed to do immediate and early cord clamping on the infants, without the mother knowing that is not a necessary procedure unless (1) the cord tore, or (2) placenta previa and the cord was accidently severed in a c-section. Both emergencies would require immediate remedy so the child's compromising state is lessened. See Section 180 of the Canadian Criminal Code.
- The birthing mother's rights are found in the Constitutional and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This means that no doctor, nurse, midwife, or hospital can impose a policy of treatment that has endangering risks during a mother's delivery. The mother does not have to take any medical drug risk or cutting of her person to have a baby. The mother merely needs to be informed and sign a waiver she was informed. The mother does not have to birth in a position other then her choice and where, and how.
- Any drug offered to a pregnant lady will cross the placenta and hurt her baby, in most instances. Any early umbilical cord clamping as treatment on an infant's lifeline deprives the infant from 4 ounces to 6 ounces of blood. The facts of science are that a 9-pound infant only creates 10-ounces of total blood.
- No reasonable Judge would order an infant to give up 20 to 50 percent for future use, or to store in blood banks?
- No reasonable loving mother would offer her baby's blood that is needed for his/her own optimal health or chances for optimal health and to be a blue-ribbon-baby.
- The placenta blood is the infant's, and his/her alone. Therefore, the infant, too, has Constitutional rights for security of person and equal protection, that not even the legal guardian can waive if it was not a benefit to the child, owner of the blood.
- Therefore, we must question Policies of Medical persons and the executives Hospitals, or Colleges had on board, if they are withholding facts of science for informed choice of the mother. This is according to when policies were made, or medical educational practices were being made.
- When the policies were first known to be contrary to Charter of Rights and Freedoms, logical and reason of an average person informed, the Rule of Law, Criminal codes, why these false policies continued to be followed and not dissented from must be examined to be justified by those having a duty to question such decisions and actions.
- If the policies, that were not logically reasonable, were then put into practice by the medical person, who had no gun held to their head to do those policies, there is the Criminal Code for any person to do Laying of Information of assault (threatening harmful practices to be imposed on mother and child) and the actual battery.
- These criminal charges, in Laying of Information, can be alleged and taken against known criminal medical malpractices. No lawyer needs to present them to a Justice of the Peace.
- Therefore, those that made the questionable practices and those that do them and endanger are responsible for any Criminal Constitutional violations as to medical treatments taken without informed consent.
- The medical practice, policies and procedures if they were not factually known, by test or evidence, to be done, and the medical person(s) imposed a treatment, against the mothers wishes, or not informed consent of the risks, they just tell it to the judge. This is, particularly, if there is a risk of allergic reactions to the drug, and the drug is not really necessary. No mother has to accept risks if she wants a natural and unassisted birth.
Lotus Birth : The right of the mother is to birth in a hospital, with a doorstop, if she wants assurance no unnecessary intrusion of her birth, not wanted, or asked for. The hospital birth is just for a safe environment, should the unusual happen, there is help near by, if necessary. But natural birth is the mother's right, undrugged, and baby unclamped after birth on his/her lifeline.
_________________________________
Search this www.lotusbirth.com web site for : AAP policy, SOGC policy, ACOG policy; Placenta; Fetus to Neonate Circulation; 30-second clamping; World Health Organization and Dupont ; Circumcision ; Dr. Sarah Buckley's Declaration ; pH receptors ; Canadian Criminal Codes and when a baby is a person; and any other subject you may be interested on child birth. Search Lotusbirth
(Reference from Protect Babies
http://www.123-baby-birth.com)
Search at Google this web site for the " No Policies " on equal
protection to babies at from the various government officials who appointed representatives to protect
the public on medical
policies and practices; also the "No policies" of the various medical associations, societies,
and colleges did not live up to no
form of discrimination to women or the child of any kind. It is believed they had a duty to have
a policy of equal protection and
security of person, regardless of: age, mental or physical disadvantages ; race, color, social
or marital status of the pregnant
lady ; or belief or faith of the family, or genetic type of blood sought for by medical researchers,
for stem cell matching, and use of
white cells, mature red cells, platelets, enzymes, hormones, and plasma.
contact:
Donna Young, Mother and Grandmother
Home: www.lotusbirth.com
References of research: www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm
A medical web site to visit:
