Well, one more nail in the coffin of individual liberty. (you still think you have rights?)

www.nbcnews.com...

A 79 year old federal judge that was appointed by Reagan has just thrown out the lawsuit by hospital workers who were suing the hospital they worked at for forcing them to get vaccinated with the non vaccine or lose their job. Hopefully this makes it to the U.S, Supreme Court but I doubt they will stand up for our rights. I believe that to get to that level (Conservative or liberal) you have to have sold your soul. Het pro forced vaxxers ,one question, what happened to the mantra " my body, my choice" ? Your body is the last thing you have exclusive ownership of and control of what happens to it in this world and that is being taken from us now. "U.S. district judge Lynn N. Hughes said in his ruling that claims that the vaccines are dangerous are "false, and it is also irrelevant." So I guess this guy has studied the vaccines long term effects and knows this? Please explain to me if this vaccine is so great and not harmful why has half of the countries health care workers gotten it? They were first in line for it and half said no thanks.

www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: BlankUsername

There's a lot of words there in that article. My opinion is follow the money.

Just saw this. Soooo disappointed.

I've always been pesonally anti- this vax, but hesitant to believe there is a full fledged conspiracy about the jab. With this ruling, I'm getting more and more convinced the fix is truly in.

I'd really hoped this would be the opportunity the judiciary would take a stand for human rights and medical ethics. I was so wrong.

This ruling essentially allows private organizations and corporations to stomp on the principle of informed consent that was borne out of medical experimentation that violated human rights.

This makes zero sense that a private entity can mandate a person take an experimental drug that the federal government says you have a right to refuse. A drug that is approved only for use due to a declared "emergency". Absent the "emergency", the C19 jab would still be in research trials...which oddly enough, would mean you have to CONSENT to take part in.

As a medical professional, even if I was pro- this vax, I find this ruling a disgrace and a giant step backwards in patient rights.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Every state has their own laws, and it makes sense to me that this lady is nuts. Pretty sure the constitution still holds up, and she can make her own decisions whether or not she is willing to do "things".

Edit: it's like signing a contract and reneging on it because you didn't read the fine print.

The lawsuit itself could have been a clever red herring designed to fail on purpose and automatically "legalize" forced vaxes !! 😃

a reply to: TzarChasm

Gee thanks, I am aware of what was in the article. I read it. Not sure what point you are trying to make

originally posted by: Rekrul
a reply to: TzarChasm

Every state has their own laws, and it makes sense to me that this lady is nuts. Pretty sure the constitution still holds up, and she can make her own decisions whether or not she is willing to do "things".

Edit: it's like signing a contract and reneging on it because you didn't read the fine print.

At will employment gives those staff the right to walk away any time they decide the grass is greener in another pasture. Suing the business they work for into altering their policies is a different matter entirely.

a reply to: TzarChasm

People do it all the time. Especially with workers comp. It's really hard to trust people.

Reminds me a lot of the DoD anthrax vaccine refusers in the early 2000s.

While anthrax is an ooooold vaccine. 3rd or 4th ever developed IIRC. It was be no means new.... but was being pushed for use for a new reason, prevention of inhalational anthrax (which it was NOT approved for, thus use was off-label, requiring consent).

Location I was stationed at the time court martialed an ER doc for refusing, failure to obey a lawful order. His argument was as above. Off-label use requires patient consent and thus the order was not lawful. Court martial judge tossed the defense immediately. Absent what should have been an iron clad defense, he was convicted. Pure BS then. Pure BS now.

Interestingly, President Bush scrapped the program for a while. His reason for doing so...the exact reason the doc above raged against the machine. You can't force a person to take a drug it wasn't fully approved to be used for.

So maybe there is hope on appeal, but it's a flagging shame this nonsense isn't being quashed at the lowest levels, where it should be.

So for now, I identify as being vaccinated, since these days it seems "identifying" has the power to overturn reality.

a reply to: BlankUsername

I think they were just quoting the points so people don't have to go off site

originally posted by: xuenchen
The lawsuit itself could have been a clever red herring designed to fail on purpose and automatically "legalize" forced vaxes !! 😃

I think this is EXACTLY the intention.

a reply to: davegazi2

I remember that in high school. The only thing I managed to learn from anthrax mail is the band anthrax. Wich I still don't think is as good as slayer, or megadeth.

a reply to: davegazi2

I don't see how they can force you to take any drug, approved or not.

a reply to: BlankUsername

They can't. You have to willing do it

It is Houston, Harris County. Almost as liberal as Austin.

a reply to: [post=25931984]BlankUsername[/po

This ruling says that people have the right to refuse the vaccine but do not have the right to a job.

There's nothing new here. It's SOP for the last forty years.

a reply to: BlankUsername

Please explain to me if this vaccine is so great and not harmful why has half of the countries health care workers gotten it? They were first in line for it and half said no thanks.

Half of the healthcare workers in this country think crystals can fix you with a little bit of reiki. You can have “nurse” in your title after a 6 month program or after 8 years of study.

Which ones do you think are refusing the shot?

a reply to: davegazi2

Funny you should mention that...guess which current cult leader was involved in the anthrax vaccine....

originally posted by: BlankUsername
a reply to: davegazi2

I don't see how they can force you to take any drug, approved or not.

I left a job in 2014 because they made the flu vaccine a requirement of employment.

I either had to take the vaccine or I had to wear a mask. I opted for the mask. When they changed that rule to wearing the mask at all times while on premises, I chose to find employment elsewhere.

As is turned out, I did not have to look for a job. The job came looking for me, and I ended up getting paid three times more than I was being paid before, and a lot of travel was thrown in, with a ton of perks. I loved traveling and it ended up being my dream job.

The only downside, was that it required me having to feed too much of myself to the beast to protect my patients. I had to give it up because there just was not enough of me left to continue to do the job well.

All that to say, that the employer can make requirements that you may find invasive and demanding, but as long as you have the choice of saying no, it is going to be very hard to sue them for their demands.