So, alternatively could one declare preemptively that they have been served a secret warrant (wink wink, nudge nudge)? Then when actually served a secret warrant, one would have to remove said declaration to avoid being in violation of the warrant.

I've had this same problem with a Tripp-Lite APS3636VR which is a $1200 UPS designed to provide hardwired circuits with continuous power. Despite mains being available, we suffered considerable losses due to the APS3636VR failing, and Tripp-Lite refused to do anything to make it right. I'm now very cautious about the use of UPS devices in any type of critical application.

This was already passed by the senate, without the "Denial of license as motor vehicle dealer" clauses: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_SB_137 I guess I don't understand how the bill amendment process works, but are they really considering amending it now that it has already passed?

Assuming you really want to know and aren't just asking to start an argument: It is because newborns are at greatest medical risk if infected by one of the many diseases for which they are vaccinated and because for some diseases (such as Hep B), once it is contracted it can be a lifelong illness which later vaccination cannot prevent/cure. From the WHO:
"Young children who become infected with the hepatitis B virus are the most likely to develop chronic infections:

90% of infants infected during the first year of life develop chronic infections;
30–50% of children infected between one to four years of age develop chronic infections."

Surely you were around when Hurricane Ike hit Ohio (2008)? I don't know what the final tally was, but the Ohio Insurance Institute expected claims to top $1 billion: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2008/10/08/ikedamage.html

From the article: "concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas" - meaning they weren't actually trying to compare Sugar vs HFCS. Since they weren't offering the rats similar amounts of each. So, did the rats gain weight because they preferred the less sweet HFCS solution and thus drank more? From the article: "Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet" - meaning the second study wasn't even comparing Sugar vs HFCS - just HFCS vs nothing. Of course rats who ate a bunch of HFCS were less healthy than those eating relatively lean and low-sugar rat food. Neither of these studies attempts to compare between equivalent consumption of Suger vs HFCS. And if you read the actual study, you will see that they did not intend to. That's not to say that HFCS is perfectly safe - but this study does nothing to study "equal amounts of sucrose and HFCS in a human metabolism" - or any other animal's metabolism for that matter.