Politicians in the state of Montana are pushing a new bill that would make it a crime for those who have been “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) to donate blood.
Citing contamination issues, Rep. Greg Kmetz (R-Miles City), the sponsor behind House Bill 645, wants to make it a misdemeanor with a $500 fine for vaccinated donors to contribute their spike protein-laden blood to the donation pool.
HB 645 would also ban people who have had a diagnosis of “long covid,” medically defined as “postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 due to chronic 27 SARS-CoV-2 viral infection,” from donating blood in Montana.
“Montana’s blood supply could be cut by up to 80%, leading to adverse patient outcomes including unnecessary and unconscionable death,” said Cliff Numark, senior vice president of the blood collection nonprofit Vitalant, about the potential impact of the legislation.
Most blood banks are already struggling to keep up with demand, and an 80 percent reduction in available supply in the event that HB 645 passes would only make matters worse.
(Related: Biden continues to push Americans to take endless “booster” injections so their blood spike protein levels remain as high as possible.)
Montana doesn’t want to give people tainted blood transfusions
Numark’s admission about the 80 percent reduction in available clean blood is based on statistics out of Montana showing that four out of five residents have received at least one injection of a covid “vaccine” since the initial rollout of Operation Warp Speed.
Most Montanans, in other words, have tainted blood and would no longer be allowed to share that tainted blood with patients in need. The same is true in other states where uptake of the jabs was high.
Kmetz’s new legislation builds upon House Bill 702 from last session. That bill outlawed discrimination on the basis of vaccination status, though a portion of it was struck down in December as unconstitutional.
Other proponents of HB 645 include Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway, vice chairwoman of the House Human Services Committee. Sheldon-Galloway’s brother is a mortician who told her that covid injections cause issues with blood flow.
“I’m one of many who believe in the God given right of medical freedom, which is having access to genetically unmodified blood during a time of need,” said Jo Vilhauer, a resident of Miles City who supports HB 645. “This is a vital part of health autonomy.”
According to Dr. Michael Busch, director of the Vitalant Research Institute, the true percentage of tainted blood in the United States is closer to 90 percent than it is to 80 percent, meaning as little as only one in 10 donors have clean, safe blood.
This is a serious problem because those in need of a blood transfusion will have to wait a lot longer for it – if they are ever able to receive one at all, now that most of the American blood supply is loaded with toxic spike proteins and other jab ingredients.
One problem with HB 645 is that there is no way to test blood samples for spike proteins or any other evidence of covid jab contamination. It is thus a trust-based system that is impractical at best.
Rep. Jodee Etchart (R-Billings), who requested the bill, asked Kmetz to consider establishing two different blood banks: one for vaccinated blood and another for unvaccinated blood. Kmetz says constituents are opposed to that idea.
“We are not going to consider that,” Kmetz said.
“The way it appears, no one will qualify, and this bill will go down so fast it isn’t even worth bringing,” Etchart responded about the unlikelihood that HB 645 will pass.
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post