You may feel that the American government exercised abusive, autocratic powers over the people of the United States during the pandemic. (And you would be correct.) But we really can’t hold a candle to New Zealand, where they imposed lockdowns that were only slightly less brutal than what’s being seen in China today. And now the New Zealand government’s COVID mandates are veering off in another disturbing direction.

An unnamed couple in Aukland is dealing with a terrible situation. Their four-month-old infant is suffering from a severe heart condition that urgently requires surgery. But prior to approving the procedure, the parents requested that the baby only receive blood transfusions provided by unvaccinated donors to avoid any of the mRNA getting into the child’s system. The hospital refused the request, basically accusing the parents of being conspiracy theorists. This has delayed the operation, and now the New Zealand Health Service has filed a request to terminate the parent’s guardianship of their baby and remove the child to perform the surgery.

New Zealand has long been in the running for the most draconian COVID-19 lockdown policy under WEF minion Jacinda Ardern, edged out perhaps in its brutality only by Canada, likewise led by WEF errand boy Justin Trudeau.

The Kiwi nation recently threatened to remove a child from his parents’ custody on the grounds that they don’t want him infused with mRNA blood.

Via the Guardian:

“New Zealand’s health service has made a court application over the guardianship of a four-month-old baby whose parents are refusing to allow his life-saving heart surgery to go ahead unless non-vaccinated blood is used…”

This situation is simply awful no matter whose side you take. In a way, I can understand the urgency that the Health Service feels in their efforts to get the child into surgery as quickly as possible. If the baby winds up dying as a result of this delay, it will have been a needlessly lost life and the parents may wind up facing prosecution over it to boot.

But at the same time, if they have unvaccinated donors standing by and ready to provide enough blood to complete the surgery, what on earth is the justification for the hospital refusing to do this? Shouldn’t the life of the baby be prioritized over questions of whether or not the parents are willing to toe the government line on COVID vaccines? They have the ability to do the surgery today and by refusing to do so, the staff at the hospital should be held equally culpable if this story ends in the worst-case scenario.

A separate argument is being made on behalf of the hospital. It’s being claimed that donated blood “gets filtered during processing, so any trace amounts that may still be present poses no risk to recipients.” With the usual disclaimer that I’m not a doctor of any sort, allow me to ask a question here. Does that sound logical to anyone? Can you just “filter” the vaccine out of blood after it’s been injected? That’s pretty much the opposite of what we’ve been hearing from doctors in the United States.

Both sides in this standoff sound like they are attempting to act in the best interests of the baby. But they’re staring at each other from opposite sides of the COVID vaccine divide. Removing a child from its parents is a very drastic step and the government should only undertake it when there is evidence of abuse or danger to the child. The New Zealand Health Service will obviously argue that the insistence on using unvaccinated blood will qualify as abuse, and if the child doesn’t receive the surgery in time, they may have a point. But if they have the ability to perform the surgery using readily available blood that the parents will accept and still refuse to proceed, the hospital will be an equal partner in the alleged abuse.