Yes John, there were large demonstrations, but I would argue those protests weren't successful in garnering significant public sympathy for our cause outside of our 'bubble'.  Reflect back on the Civil Rights movement in the US, and the accompanying civil disobedience.  Even though blacks were the significant minority, the civil disobedience garnered a lot of public sympathy with whites, as many came to not being able to stomach seeing blacks beaten to a pulp demanding their basic human rights.  This caused a ripple in the political sphere; politicians also found it harder to defend discrimination laws, and of course the judiciary followed, overturning such laws and rendering 'justice'.  As stated, this same script played out with suffrage, slavery, homosexual discrimination, abortion, and so on.

With "anti-vaxx" protests, we're not quite there yet.  Despite the oversized 'noise' that we can generate relative to our small numbers, our agenda is still not resonating with the public at large in a significant way.  The populous are either apathetic to our cause, or, worse, see us as a threat to a championed public heath measure.

With this said, I do, however, believe we are making real in-roads.  Putting it colloquially, vaccination  is simply a bad risk..  As we continue to speak out, more folks are waking up to this realization, just not enough at this point to affect significant change in the political or judiciary realm.  Yet, the same can be said for about the other aforementioned agendas.  It's simple a matter of erosion -- erosion of course signifying what may appear rock solid on the surface one day, can quickly crumble in dramatic fashion!  

The fight goes on and this law will hopefully end up in the Constitutional Court again,
when the real and obvious problems will possibly be discussed.
Still this is not a very good start..

Reading the judge's decision rejecting the motion to block implementation of SB 277, I was struck by the 'art' that went into the decision. To say that I believe that the judge showed partiality is an understatement.

I cannot help but ponder, with the history of western 'democracy' have courts every ruled in favour of a minority agenda that lacked significant public pressure or rancor? Consider slavery, suffrage, homosexual discrimination, abortion ban, and so on. In all of these cases the courts initially upheld them until significant public pressure was brought to bear. I think a definite case can be made that the judiciary system is just an extended arm of rulers, and masquerading as it's not with fanciful talk of 'justice'.

https://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Italy/default.asp

Homeschooling is legal in Italy, but most people are unaware of this. This means that parents in Italy need to either homeschool themselves if one parent can stay at home or come together to organize homeschooling co-ops.

Bring the corrupt government to their knees. Civil disobedience. Refuse these medieval chemical injections.

Awful, but expected.
The opposition of Veneto was based on a conflict of competence:
who should decide to mandate vaccinations, the regions locally or the state centrally?
On this aspect the court basically said that the state can prevail.
But this does not have much to do with the basic rights of the people:
the right to decide what goes into your body and the body of your children
AND the right of the children to attend school and not being discriminated.
At the same time their statement that mandating vaccinations is justified
by the decrease in vaccine acceptance does not sound like
something that has to do with the regions vs. state competence problem.
And, frankly, with our constitution in general.
The fight goes on and this law will hopefully end up in the Constitutional Court again,
when the real and obvious problems will possibly be discussed.
Still this is not a very good start..

The protests must continue .................. life & death situation