Did you hear from media that the DOJ issued an opinion that employers can legally mandate vaccinations under EUA status? Why would the DOJ issue an opinion? Our bet, the President asked for an opinion to support his agenda. After all the title of the document is “Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy Counsel to the President.”
Many attorneys have been arguing that since the FDA has not actually approved the “vaccines,” no one can mandate them under the emergency authorization use status. The DOJ disagrees.
When a CEO is about to issue a new edict, order, direction, and there might be legal consequences to the decision, what is done? The CEO gets the legal team to tell him how he can do what he wants. The legal team rarely just wakes up to write a “what if” brief. I’m betting that’s what happens when you are President of the U.S. as well.
The President wants more vaccinations, but why should he be the bad guy? The government forcing vaccines is a legal nightmare. The alternative—pressure employers and schools to do the dirty work. Hey legal, publish a document that says what we want people to do is legal, and we’ll make sure the world knows.
Stop. Before you think this is settled law. Think again. We’re just getting started.
The DOJ memo is not dispositive of the issue. It is NOT settled law. It is an opinion. The DOJ gets challenged daily. The issue is still a legal matter for the courts. But what does the DOJ memo do?
- Causes more people to take the “vaccine.” Citizens, with media’s help, assume the mandate is inevitable and take the shot without anyone actually mandating it.
- Supports businesses and schools in their effort to mandate a shot.
- Provides the “expert” opinion, acting almost like an amicus brief for all the businesses and schools to defend their position by citing the DOJ memo in court. It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
According to the Department of Justice, “We conclude that section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II) concerns only the provision of information to potential vaccine recipients and does not prohibit public or private entities from imposing vaccination requirements for vaccines that are subject to EUAs. By its terms, the provision directs only that potential vaccine recipients be ‘informed’ of certain information including ‘the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.’” DOJ Memo to President
Accept or Refuse. A shot recipient must be told he has a right to accept or refuse the shot. The DOJ cites a Houston judge in the Methodist Hospital district court case, “…[A]n employer’s vaccination policy was not ‘coercive’ because an employee ‘can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else.’”
I suppose that’s one way of looking at it. But how far does that logic stretch?
- Sports. If the NFL says all league players employed by teams must be vaccinated (for all practical purposes or everyone suffers), that is in effect a mandate. And if the players (and others) are given the choice to take a shot or stay employed, is that an option? Where does an NFL player go with all his talent and training if no other employer has a different rule?
- Surgeons. What about surgeons? If all hospitals mandate shots, what choice does a surgeon have for employment using his skills and training?
- Older workers. What about workers who are two years from retirement? Will they find another job? Will they lose their full retirement benefits? How much of a choice is that?
While the job market is good for a number of people right now, the choice between providing for yourself and your family and facing unemployment may not seem like much of a choice.
I must say there are a lot of citizens who are not feeling supported or respected by the federal government, despite their sending taxes to them every month.
Vaccine v. Gene Therapy? The fact checkers don’t like the phrase, “gene therapy.” However, there is a strong argument that the “vaccine” is not a vaccine. America’s Frontline Doctors recently filed suit against the U.S.H.H.S. Their lawyer’s argument is quite compelling.
“The public are fundamentally uninformed about the gene therapy technology behind the
“Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.” Referring to
the “mRNA technology” in its Vaccine, Moderna admits the “novel and unprecedented nature of
this new class of medicines” in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings.18 Further, it
admits that the FDA classes its Vaccine as a form of “gene therapy.” No dead or attenuated
virus is used in the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19
Vaccine.” Rather, instructions, via a piece of lab-created genetic code (the mRNA) are injected
into your body that tell your body how to make a certain “spike protein” that is purportedly useful in attacking the SARES-CoV-2 virus.
By referring to the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-
19 Vaccine” as “vaccines,” and by allowing others to do the same, the Defendants knowingly
seduce and mislead the public, short-circuit independent, critical evaluation and decision-making by the consumers of these products, and vitiate their informed consent to this novel technology which is being deployed in the unsuspecting human population for the first time in history.” Frontline v HHS Pleading
There are other legal arguments directly controverting the DOJ’s memo. However, for today, that’s enough legal speak.
More employers will invariably start mandatory (or partial mandatory) “vaccination” policies given the federal government and the media paving the way. But, that doesn’t mean employers will win the fight. They are winning some battles, but this is going to take time. In the meantime, focus on your family and your health. And, make sure you continue to perform at your peak at work. No one likes losing good employees!