What Biden's Vaccine Mandate Means for You

[ad_1]

September 9, 2021, in a sweeping executive order,¹ president Joe Biden mandated all U.S. companies with 100 or more employees to require COVID vaccination or weekly testing, or face federal fines of up to $14,000 per violation. Biden required that businesses allow employees time off for the injections.

Biden also requires all federal workers and contractors to have the shot. The vaccine mandate does not apply to postal workers, members of Congress, and staff. Biden made no exceptions to those who are already suffering from COVID or have been cured and thus have antibodies.

He also said he’d use his “power as president" against any governor unwilling to follow the order "to get them out of the way.”² Biden may be biting off more than he can chew, however, because as of September 11, 2021, 28 states were already pushing back against federal vaccine mandates.³

Many States Vow to Fight Back Unconstitutional Mandate

The backlash was swift. The Republican National Committee quickly announced they would sue the Biden administration for issuing an “unconstitutional mandate.” GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel issued a statement:⁴

“Joe Biden told Americans when he was elected that he would not impose vaccine mandates. He lied. The cost will now be borne by small business owners, workers and their families throughout the country.

As many Americans, my views are pro-vaccine as well as anti-mandate. Many small businesses and workers do not have the money or legal resources to fight Biden’s unconstitutional actions and authoritarian decrees, but when his decree goes into effect, the RNC will sue the administration to protect Americans and their liberties.”

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse told the Daily Caller:⁵

“President Biden is so desperate to distract from his shameful, incompetent Afghanistan exit that he is saying crazy things and pushing constitutionally flawed executive orders.

This is a cynical attempt to pick a fight and distract from the President’s morally disgraceful decision to leave Americans behind Taliban lines on the 20th anniversary of 9/11. This isn’t how you beat COVID, but it is how you run a distraction campaign — it’s gross and the American people shouldn’t fall for it.”

In a series of tweets, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem stated:^6,7

“South Dakota will stand up to defend freedom @JoeBiden see you in court,” and “My legal team is standing by ready to file our lawsuit the minute Joe Biden files his unconstitutional rule. This gross example of federal intrusion will not stand.”

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp also issued a statement saying he intends to “pursue every legal option available” to halt Biden’s “blatantly unlawful overreach,” as did Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, who in a tweet stated:⁸

“This is exactly the kind of big government overreach we have tried so hard to prevent in Arizona — now the Biden-Harris administration is hammering down on private businesses and individual freedoms in an unprecedented and dangerous way. It will not stand in court.

This unAmerican, dictatorial approach will cause far more damage than good. I wonder how many people will have to leave? What percentage of children are kept out? What number of businesses were fined? It is possible to choose the vaccine. We must and will push back.”

Florida Governments Face Fines if Following Biden’s Order

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis countered Biden’s edict with one of his own. A local government which makes COVID vaccine a condition for employment is subject to a $5,000 fine.⁹ During a September 13, 2021, press conference, DeSantis said:

“We are gonna stand for the men and women who are serving us. Florida workers will not be fired because of a vaccine mandate. People will not be let go because of the vaccine mandate.

It's not enough to fire people for their loyalty over this issue. This is basically an individual choice about one's own health. These people cannot be ignored. Their jobs cannot be lost."

I was going to include DeSantis’ speech in this article, but it has since been deleted for “violating YouTube’s community guidelines.” Imagine that, that they would actually remove a legally elected governor’s opinion on this topic because it violates their authoritarian tyranny.

Biden Is Clearly Out of Legal Bounds

Biden’s executive order is unlikely to stand up in court, seeing how federal law prohibits the mandating of emergency use products, which by definition are experimental. As noted in a May 2021 report by The Defender:¹⁰

“The bottom line is this: mandating products authorized for Emergency Use Authorization status (EUA) violates federal law as detailed in the following legal notifications.¹¹

All COVID vaccines, COVID PCR and antigen tests, and masks are merely EUA-authorized, not approved or licensed, by the federal government. It has not been shown that long-term safety or efficacy can be demonstrated.

EUA products, by their nature experimental, are subject to people's right of refusal. The Nuremberg Code is the basis of ethical medicine and states that no person can be forced to take part in medical experiments. Consent of the individual is ‘absolutely essential.’

Earlier this year, Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense president and general counsel, and attorney Greg Glaser stated that federal law prohibits employers from mandating EUA COVID vaccines (or EUA COVID-19 tests or masks). Holland and Glaser wrote:¹²

‘If a vaccine has been issued EUA by the FDA, it is not fully licensed and must be voluntary. An employer, school, or hospital can't circumvent the EUA law which bans mandates. Indeed, the EUA law preventing mandates is so explicit that there is only one precedent case regarding an attempt to mandate an EUA vaccine.’”

If you’re like most, you’re probably thinking, “Well, Biden’s executive order came after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave full approval to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID shot Comirnaty, so the vaccine is not under EUA.” You’d be partially right. However, it is mostly incorrect.

The Difference Between Pfizer’s BNT162b2 Shot and Comirnaty

The FDA did indeed give full approval to Comirnaty, but that product is not predicted to be available for over a year. BNT162b2, the only Pfizer shot, is still under EUA. The FDA is to be commended for creating this bizarre and confusing situation. But the important take-home message is that although Comirnaty was approved, it is still not currently available.

Although BNT162b2 is being viewed by the FDA as interchangeable with Comirnaty from a legal perspective, they are clearly not identical. BNT162b2, which is covered by the EUA, has financial liability insurance. However, Comirnaty will no longer have this liability protection once it is available unless Pfizer/BioNTech can obtain liability shielding.

In other words, if you’re injured by the BNT162b2, your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP).¹³ Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. It has made just 29 payments in the 15 years of its existence, less than one percent.^14,15,16

You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.

There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. Retired persons cannot apply even if their spouse dies or they end up in a wheelchair. Salary compensation is of limited duration, and capped at $50,000 a year, and the CICP’s decision cannot be appealed.

If normal circumstances apply to Comirnaty, were you to be injured by that injection, you’d be able to sue for damages under the national Vaccine Injury Compensation Plan (VICP),¹⁷ so from a legal perspective, there’s a rather significant difference between these two products.

Legal Notifications You Can Use

If your employer or school requires you to get a COVID shot, consider using the legal notifications provided by the Children’s Health Defense legal team. These notices notify employers and educational institutions of violations to federal law.

Three separate notices are available for download from the Children’s Health Defense Legal Resources page;¹⁸ one for mask mandates, one for PCR testing and a third for vaccines. You can also learn how to ask for a religious exemption from COVID-19 mandates at work.

Vaccine Mandate Heralds Communist Style Social Credit System

In a September 13, 2021, episode of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy warned that vaccine mandates are “the beginning of the communist-style social credit system,” adding:¹⁹

“Dr. Anthony Fauci is now saying that if you don’t have the vaccine, you shouldn’t be able to have air travel. It happens all the time in China. In China … if you don’t agree with the government, you can’t get on a train. They will block your entry. They have a way to do that, and this is the beginning of that system where if you’re a dissident, if you don’t agree with the party in power, you will be punished.”

Are we rushing toward a social credit system where behavior is either rewarded or punished based on the whims of those in charge of the system? Biden’s refusal to make exceptions for those with natural immunity, who by no stretch of the imagination actually need or benefit from a COVID shot, seems to indicate we’re definitely heading that way.

Giving people with natural immunity a health passport won’t work for the technocratic elite because the naturally immune aren’t on a vaccine subscription. A vaccine passport means that your freedom is at risk every time there's a new booster. Either you get the booster, or your freedom is lost.

People with natural immunity can’t be roped into this control scheme. They don't know what they are going to make the naturally immune do to maintain a passport. They can’t make money off natural immunity, and they can’t use it to control.

Geoff Freeman, Consumer Brands Association CEO, listed 19 out of 50 questions he received from member companies in a letter sent to Biden on September 13, 2021.²⁰ Among those questions is whether Biden’s executive order includes religious or medical exemptions, including exemption due to natural immunity.

As reported by Newsweek,²¹ details of Biden’s plan will be ironed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), but in the meantime, Freeman called on the Biden administration to address some of the most pressing questions.

OSHA Lets Employers Off the Hook for Vaccine Injuries

Speaking of OSHA, in May 2021, the agency quietly revoked²² the requirement²³ for employers who mandate the vaccine to record side effects as a work-related event. By doing so, OSHA relieved itself and employers from having to pay out workers’ comp if an employee is injured by a mandated COVID shot. OSHA tried to justify its decision, stating:

"OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts.

As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward."

People With Natural Immunity Turn to the Law

In the days ahead, our justice system is bound to clog up with lawsuits against employers, schools and governments alike. Law professor Todd Zywicki recently sued²⁴ George Mason University in Virginia over their vaccine mandate, as he has natural immunity. Zywicki spoke out in a Wall Street Journal comment on August 6, 2021.²⁵

His lawsuit pointed out that people with natural immunity have an increased risk of adverse reactions to the COVID shot — according to one study²⁶ up to 4.4 times the risk of clinically significant side effects — and that the requirement violates due process rights, the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, and is noncompliant with the Emergency Use Authorization.²⁷

August 17, 2021, George Mason University caved before the case went to trial and granted Zywicki a medical exemption.²⁸ Unfortunately, the school did not revise its general policy.

A number of other lawsuits have also been filed, including one by more than a dozen students and Children’s Health Defense against Rutgers University in New Jersey,²⁹ and one by six Oregon workers who are suing the state on grounds that they already have natural immunity.³⁰ The plaintiffs include two corrections officers, an EMT, a medical office manager, a school bus driver and a special agent in charge of an Oregon Department of Justice investigatory unit.

Jason Dudash (director of the Oregon Freedom Foundation's Oregon chapter), who is representing state workers, has charged Oregon Gov. Kate Brown of becoming “power-hungry amid the pandemic.” “The courts must establish a more logical, science-based approach,” he said.³¹

Military Service Members Sue Over Vaccine Mandate

Military service members with natural immunity are also suing the Department of Defense, the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services. As reported by The Defender:³²

“The lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Staff Sergeant Daniel Robert and Staff Sergeant Holli Mulvihill, allege U.S. Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin ignored the DOD’s own regulations and created an entirely new definition of ‘full immunity’ as being achievable only by vaccination.

According to the lawsuit, the military’s existing laws and regulations unequivocally provide the exemption the plaintiffs seek under Army Regulation 40-562 (‘AR 40-562’), which provides documented survivors of an infection a presumptive medical exemption from vaccination because of the natural immunity acquired as a result of having survived the infection …

Dr. Admiral Brett Giroir, HHS assistant secretary, stated in an interview Aug. 24 with Fox News: ‘So natural immunity, it’s very important … There are still no data to suggest vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity. I think both are highly protective.’

Yet on the same day, Austin issued a memo mandating the entire Armed Forces be vaccinated, in which he wrote: ‘Those with previous COVID-19 infection are not considered fully vaccinated.’

In that memo, plaintiffs allege Austin created a new term and concept, which contradicts the plain language of DOD’s own regulations, long-standing immunology practice, medical ethics and the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence regarding this specific virus.

Plaintiffs claim Austin, who is not a doctor, changed the DOD’s own regulation without providing ‘a scintilla of evidence to support it.’ They also allege Austin made the regulation change without going through the required rulemaking process, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act review.”

The lawsuit also points out that Pfizer’s Phase 3 trials, which is the phase in which long-term side effects are detected, won’t be completed until 2023. Moreover, the lawsuit highlights the fact that Pfizer unblinded the two cohorts in the middle of the trial and eliminated the control group by offering the real “vaccine” to all controls.

Pfizer converted the placebo-controlled blinded trial to an open observational one, which was approved by the FDA. Observational studies carry nowhere near the same weight as placebo-controlled trials, as you don’t have anything to compare the treatment group against. It’s very easy to overlook even severe injuries when you have no control group.

Fauci Warns There Will Be ‘Many More Vaccine Mandates’

As we approach the two-year mark of this pandemic, it’s time for our judicial system to kick in and protect the public. Governors' emergency powers aren't meant to last forever. The rights granted by the U.S. Constitution to us in times of crisis and other medical emergencies is not intended to be suspended or tossed aside. It’s time this rampant lawlessness got reined in.

It remains to be determined if that will occur. One thing we know is that our legal system will fail to fulfill its responsibility and the light of freedom around the globe. As reported by CNN,³³ Fauci is out there warning that “if more people aren't persuaded to get vaccinated by messaging from health officials and ‘trusted political messengers,’ additional mandates from schools and businesses may be necessary.”

The technocratic elite will take it all the way because they are fighting for the Great Reset. And the Great Reset won’t work if people are free. You need to have leverage over people, and that is what vaccine passports are about.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts: A Ruling With Tragic Consequences

In closing, those who support the mandating of experimental COVID shots will typically point to the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case, which is often interpreted as giving government the right to force vaccinate everyone for the common good. However, as noted by Alex Berenson in a recent blog post,³⁴ we ought to really look at the time at which that verdict was given.

The U.S. Supreme Court also supported racial discrimination and corporate monopoly in the years that followed the Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision. It made questioning the government an offense punishable by jail. They ruled that workers do not have rights in the same year as 1905. In 1923, they ruled minimum wage laws are illegal and in 1927 they OK’d forced sterilization based on the Jacobson ruling.

These rulings are now almost all overturned. Most people don’t agree with racial discrimination, monopolies and child labor anymore. Many people believe that minimum wage laws should be respected and questioning the government is an essential part of democracy. This is evident in the 1905 Jacobson case v. Massachusetts. The case of 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts was brought to light at a moment when individual and civil rights were not being respected.

As noted by National Vaccine Information Center president Barbara Loe Fisher in “How Fear of a Virus Changed Our World”:³⁵

“Using bad logic and bad science while leaning heavily on the pseudo-ethic of utilitarianism, state governments were given the green light to legally require vaccination based on a ‘common belief’ that vaccination is safe and effective, rather than proven fact.

Piously waving the greater good flag to justify throwing civil liberties out the door, the court majority ruled that citizens do not have a legal right to be free at all times because there are ‘manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good’ …

But the justices also warned that mandatory vaccination laws should not be forced on a person whose physical condition would make vaccination ‘cruel and inhuman to the last degree.’ They said:

‘We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied in such a case or, if it was so intended, that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned. ‘All laws,’ this Court has said, ‘should receive a sensible construction’ …

During this time of fear and confusion, the Jacobson ruling also reminds us that it is democratically elected representatives in state legislatures who make public health laws governing people living in different states. Because the U.S. Constitution doesn't define federal activities as such, it is left to states. This serves as an important safeguard against federal government power.

Elected lawmakers in your state can choose to mandate a few or many vaccines with or without exemptions, while the federal government has the authority to mandate vaccinations for people entering the U.S. or crossing state borders.”

[ad_2]