When State Legislatures Fail to Act, Due Process is Left Open to Interpretation and “Rational Review” of Liability.
This issue of mandatory medical intervention is being called into question, as is the way COVID-19 has been handled by U.S regulatory agencies. On September 12, 2022 researchers at Harvard, University of San Fransisco, Oxford, Edinburgh,
John's Hopkins et al Medical Schools published a study in which researchers assert that the COVID-19 vaccine and boosters are 98 percent worse than the virus itself, for young adults. In addition, the authors challenge coercive policies, making five arguments against "ethically unjustifiable" mandates on campus.
- "No formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;
- "Vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
- "Mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
- "US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
- "Mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose Covid-19 vaccine mandates in North America." - quoted from the study's abstract.
Challenges have come on the heels of full disclosure, compelled by a court ruling last year. A group of highly qualified and credentialed scientists and doctors filed a Freedom of Information Act with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), to release the documents they received prior to granting EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for Pfizer's BioNTech biologics. Although the FDA had promised complete transparency through their licensing period of the COVID-19 biologics, the FDA refused to release the documents, initially stating they would need 75 years to produce the clinical trial data, or about 500 pages per month.
The team of scientists took the FDA to court, and in September of 2021, a
Texas Judge ruled that the FDA had until March of 2022 to release all documents publicly. As the evidence used to issue EUA status is slowly being revealed, challenges of ethical and medical malfeasance mount.
Now, a group called
Nations in Action,
has filed an Amicus Brief in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals citing the Liberty Clause. Plaintiffs Katie Sczesny, Jamie Rumfield, Debra Hagen, and Mariette Vitti allege the state of New Jersey via Governor Philip Murphy, violated their due process, fourth and fourteenth amendment rights, by conditioning the benefit of employment upon the relinquishment of a constitutional right.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
"The fact that the government in this case conditioned the benefit of
employment on the relinquishment of a constitutional right does not alter the
Liberty Clause analysis. Pursuant to the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions,
the extraordinary level of coercion involved in the COVID-19 injection mandates
render them presumptively unconstitutional and subject to the same judicial
scrutiny as laws of general applicability," the Amicus Brief states.
Law Professor and lead author of the Amicus Brief, Deana Sacks, says she is frustrated that other attorneys have failed to argue these cases, or practice the law on the basis of "strict review."
Sacks asserts that the burden of proof falls upon each attorney, and up until this point, the history of bodily autonomy has yet to be laid out or shown to be a constitutional right through proper pleadings, and arguments.
Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!
--Breeauna Sagdal- Health and Policy Journalist for The Dakota Leader| Post Date: 2022-09-14 08:40:57 | Last Update: 2022-09-14 14:17:34 |
