 |
| "Alright, mister. Bend over. It's time for your v...no, not you, Joe!" |
In which a hack DOJ mouthpiece does the bidding of the Occupation Government:
DOJ says it's legal to mandate COVID vaccines | Washington Examiner
"The Department of Justice on Monday published an opinion indicating that coronavirus vaccine mandates are legal despite only being approved for emergency use.
The judgment was brought to light as areas across the country have either mulled or implemented shot mandates in some capacity amid a surge in cases. The Food and Drug Administration's emergency use go-ahead "does not prohibit public or private entities from imposing vaccination requirements for vaccines that are subject to EUAs," the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel wrote. Citizens have a right to be "'informed' of certain information, including 'the option to accept or refuse administration of the product,'" though businesses, government, and other entities are not prohibited from requiring doses from Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson and Johnson, all of which have received only emergency use authorizations, the DOJ added.
None of the shots have been given a set date for full FDA approval, though health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden's chief medical adviser, are confident the vaccinations will be given the OK from the government body. However, both federal and local entities have opted not to wait for the FDA to mandate vaccinations.".......
Employers can't require Covid-19 vaccination under an EUA - STAT (statnews.com)
"Given the uncertainty about the two vaccines, their EUAs are explicit that each is “an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication” and require that all “promotional material relating to the Covid-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously … state that this product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA” (emphasis added).
Emergency Use Authorizations are clear: Getting these vaccines is voluntary
The same section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that authorizes the FDA to grant emergency use authorization also requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” Likewise, the FDA’s guidance on emergency use authorization of medical products requires the FDA to “ensure that recipients are informed to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … That they have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product …”
In the same vein, when Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination can be required, she responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals. The EUAs for both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines require facts sheets to be given to vaccination providers and recipients. These fact sheets make clear that getting the vaccine is optional. For example, the one for recipients states that, “It is your choice to receive or not receive the Covid-19 Vaccine,” and if “you decide to not receive it, it will not change your standard of medical care.”.......
This firm is fighting mandatory COVID-19 vaccines with legal filings and warnings (abajournal.com)
"In December, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offered its guidance. The EEOC said employers can require their employees to get COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of going to work, as long as there are reasonable accommodations for those who decline because of a disability or religious beliefs.
Once vaccines receive full approval, legal challenges will become more difficult, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer and an anti-vaccine advocate who has advanced the much-disputed view that a vaccine ingredient can cause autism, according to the Washington Post.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Kennedy pointed to a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld the power of state government to force residents to get vaccinated against smallpox or pay a fine.
To succeed, “you’d need to go to the Supreme Court and get a reversal of Jacobson,” he said."
Judge in TX Court Rules Healthcare Employees Follow COVID Mandate (natlawreview.com)
"Employers are required—like Houston Methodist did here—to include exceptions to a mandatory vaccination policy for employees with valid medical conditions or sincerely held religious beliefs that prevent them from receiving the vaccine. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and similar state laws prohibit workplace discrimination based on disability and religion and require employers to make reasonable accommodations so that all employees have an equal opportunity to perform the essential functions of their jobs. In the context of vaccine requirements, lawsuits generally allege that excusing the employee from an employer-mandated vaccine would have been a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s disability or religious beliefs, but the employer refused to grant the reasonable accommodation. Importantly, none of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit against Houston Methodist claimed a valid medical or religious belief for declining to get vaccinated, so those types of challenges are not infringed at all by this court decision.There may not yet be any law that directly or explicitly makes it illegal for employers to require the vaccine (and now, with this court decision, there is authority expressly greenlighting such policies), but that may not stop employees from bringing lawsuits around the country to apply existing legal theories in new ways. No crystal ball can predict exactly how many battles will ensue following this court.
It remains to be seen what will happen if the plaintiffs appeal their loss against Houston Methodist or if other cases will be injected into the courts across the country. But this case and the several prior workplace vaccination lawsuits shed light on the type of legal claims employers might anticipate and allow them to fortify their defenses if they choose to implement mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies.".......
21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)--
“Federal law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requires that the person to whom an EUA vaccine is administered be advised, ‘of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.’”Dear Boss,
Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law.
First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine. ( ... ) This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947.
As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).
Secondly, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).)
Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.
With Regards,
Sundance cracks the code:
"The new CDC approved rapid response test will cull the flu cases from false positives; that approach will automatically drop the number of new COVID cases identified. The Biden regime will then say the drop in new COVID cases is because of the forced vaccinations in major population groups. As a result, everyone must get vaccinated because the added vaccinations are lowering the COVID cases, and the statistics will prove it.
Additionally, to enhance the talking point of most new infections caused by non-vaccinated persons, the hospital guidance is not to test the vaccinated. If you only test the unvaccinated, then only the unvaccinated test positive. This hospital statistic then gives the appearance that most new COVID cases in hospitals are found in non-vaccinated patients.
Can you see it?
This false assertion, driven by organized manipulation of events, will then increase pressure on the remaining public to get vaccinated. The drop in COVID positive cases will create the momentum for additional COVID vaccination mandates.
These are all political moves made by weaponizing multiple federal institutions in alliance with the people behind the Biden administration. We are the victims of a massive propaganda campaign, politically motivated and orchestrated by multiple agencies within an ideological federal government.
If we thought the pressure to vaccinate is bad now, we haven’t seen anything yet. It is going to get ugly, with threats of federal reimbursement dollars (medicare, medicaid, food and housing) withheld from states as leverage against Red State governors who do not mandate vaccinations. Vaccination passports are a guarantee in this approach; possibly even federally mandated in order to “safely vote” in the 2022 mid-term election; and the unvaccinated fear will guarantee mail-in ballots again.".......
Why are they hell-bent on imposing their TUSKEGEE RAPE-JAB?
Malicious motives metastasize:
1.) Continue to sell billions in P$udoVaccine$
2.) Continue the Government-by-Decree Power Grab forever.
3.) The Permanent Emergency would enable the Junta to try to suppress any political events. such as Election Fraud protests under the guise of Public Health. Any BLM riots would be given a pass again, as would millions of illegals walking into the country and then seeded into Red States in hopes of spreading COVID. Then claims we need lockdown and forced injections.
4.) As US Naval officer Melquiades explained, mandatory workplace vaccinations by the Feds and states are a backdoor way to do ideological cleansing of those ranks, since there is a huge overlap between being a Trump supporter and opposing the Jab Nazis.
5.) Manipulate COVID Fear-Porn as a political campaign theme, not for public health reasons.
6. This would ELIMINATE THE CONTROL GROUP SO NO COMPARISONS COULD BE MADE.
7.) And above all, MORE MASSIVE MAIL-IN VOTE FRAUD FOR ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION.
An MNN Breaking News UPDATE:
We've just been handed the full text of the DOJ's opinion for coerced guinea pig-status:
"From the DOJ's Office of Saying Whatever We Need To Say to Do Whatever We Want To Do":
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. Sick bastards."--Dr. George Orwell, Centers for Disease Coercion and Campaign Consulting
 |
| Thanks, Doc. |
 |
| "Well, there are certain sections of New York, Mayor, that I wouldn't advise you to invade." |
“We won’t go back“…
No comments:
Post a Comment