Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘vaccine mandate’

The Media War on Canadian Truckers: Is Freedom Public Enemy Number One? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 4, 2022

Freedom is not a panacea for every challenge in life. But it is far superior to boundless submission to tinhorn dictators who know far less than they claim. Politicians like Trudeau and Biden, who fuel mass rage against any group that does not kowtow to officialdom, are sowing seeds of hatred that will proliferate long after the pandemic ends. In the long run, people have more to fear from politicians than from viruses.

James Bovard

The denigration of the Canadian trucker protest convoy exemplifies how freedom is now the biggest villain of the covid-19 pandemic. A Washington Post cartoonist portrayed the trucker convoy as “fascism” incarnate while another Post column derided the “toxic ‘Freedom Convoy.’” Anyone who resists any government command is apparently now a public enemy.

The trucker protest was spurred by the Canadian government’s sweeping covid vaccine mandate. Many truckers believe the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefit and, more importantly, that they have the right to control their own bodies. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau declared on Monday, “There is no place in our country for threats, violence or hatred.” Except for the hatred Trudeau whips up by denouncing vaccine mandate opponents as “racist” and “misogynistic.” And except for the “threats” and “violence” used by government enforcement agents to compel submission to any pandemic decree issued by Trudeau or other politicians.

Since the start of this pandemic, many people who boasted of their trust in “science and data” also believed that absolute power would keep them safe. According to their scorecard, anyone who objected to government commands was the equivalent of a heretic who must be condemned if not banished from every place except the cemetery. North of the border, Quebec epitomizes this intolerance with its new edict prohibiting unvaccinated individuals from shopping at Costco or Walmart.

The same critics who latch on to any obnoxious behavior by a few wayward Canadian truckers (MSNBC denounced them as a “cult”) to condemn freedom are also happy to exonerate any American politician who pointlessly destroyed freedom during the pandemic with bizarre edicts. In December 2020, Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti banned all unnecessary “travel, including, without limitation, travel on foot, bicycle, scooter, motorcycle, automobile, or public transit.” The mayor (who was caught violating California mask mandates at the National Football Conference championship game) offered no evidence to justify placing four million residents under house arrest. Governor Ralph Northam dictated that all Virginians must stay indoors from midnight until 5 a.m. with a few narrow exceptions. Federal judge William Stickman IV condemned Pennsylvania’s restrictions: “Broad population-wide lockdowns are such a dramatic inversion of the concept of liberty in a free society as to be nearly presumptively unconstitutional.”

Preventing politicians from obliterating freedom is now the worst form of tyranny. On Thanksgiving eve 2020, the Supreme Court struck down Governor Andrew Cuomo’s edict that limited religious gatherings in New York to ten or fewer people while permitting far more leeway for businesses to operate. The court declared that Cuomo’s rules were “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court … and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus.” An American Civil Liberties Union official fretted that “the freedom to worship … does not include a license to harm others or endanger public health.” Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe and Cornell professor Michael Dorf warned that the Supreme Court was becoming “a place like Gilead—the theocratic and misogynist country in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian ‘The Handmaid’s Tale.’”

Many progressives talk as if America faces a choice between reckless freedom and paternalism—i.e., submission to a benevolent elite. But regardless of Anthony Fauci’s boundless conceit, omniscient officials have yet to come to the rescue. Government agencies have blundered catastrophically since the start of the pandemic. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bollixed America’s initial response by sending out faulty, contaminated test kits that failed to detect the rapidly spreading virus to health agencies. Governors panicked and shut down schools, resulting in vast losses in learning and widening the achievement gap between affluent and low-income students. The vast majority of small businesses were locked down and thousands were bankrupted in a futile effort to prevent an airborne virus from continuing to spread. Placing scores of millions of people under house arrest led to record-breaking fatalities for drug overdoses and a tidal wave of depression and anxiety. New York City’s covid vaccine passport regime failed to prevent the Big Apple from becoming the hottest spot in the nation for the omicron variant.

President Joe Biden portrayed the vaccines as a magic bullet and falsely promised that people who got injected would not get covid. The CDC stopped counting “breakthrough” cases of covid among the fully vaccinated, paving the way for a resurgence of the virus that has now infected more than seventy million Americans. Or maybe two-hundred-million-plus Americans, since the CDC previously stated that only one in four cases are diagnosed and reported. Whatever. The Food and Drug Administration is seeking to delay fully disclosing Pfizer’s application for its covid vaccine approval for seventy-five years. After Biden issued a mandate that forced hospitals to fire healthy unvaccinated nurses, the CDC said it was OK for hospitals to rely on covid-positive nurses to treat patients—one of the biggest absurdities of the pandemic.

Freedom is not a panacea for every challenge in life. But it is far superior to boundless submission to tinhorn dictators who know far less than they claim. Politicians like Trudeau and Biden, who fuel mass rage against any group that does not kowtow to officialdom, are sowing seeds of hatred that will proliferate long after the pandemic ends. In the long run, people have more to fear from politicians than from viruses.


James Bovard

James Bovard is the author of ten books, including 2012’s Public Policy Hooligan, and 2006’s Attention Deficit Democracy. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Playboy, Washington Post, and many other publications.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Supreme Court rules: here’s the good news and the bad news

Posted by M. C. on January 13, 2022

Tom Woods

First, the bad news.

The Supreme Court has upheld the vaccination requirement for health-care workers as a condition for receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds.

Opinions like this one are maddening to read, because they confine themselves to questions such as whether the Secretary of Health and Human Services exceeded his congressionally granted authority when imposing this requirement. The Court then proceeds to explain that the Secretary has been understood to enjoy a very broad authority when it comes to imposing requirements regarding the administration of Medicare and Medicaid.

Not considered is where the federal government’s authority to intervene in matters involving health, whether or not given statutory expression by Congress or delegated to a health bureaucrat, derives from or how it can be justified.

Perhaps this ruling will lead to further growth in direct primary care practices, which accept neither Medicare nor Medicaid, nor even traditional insurance. That is another question.

The good news is very good: the OSHA vaccine mandate for employees of businesses with 100 or more workers has been blocked.

Such a measure, the Court says, constitutes a vast overreach by OSHA into the more general field of public health, where it has not been granted authority.

It would have been nicer to hear an opinion based on the nature of what was being demanded as opposed to whether the institution doing the demanding was the correct one.

But I’ll take what I can get.

I pulled out some relevant passages from the opinion of the Court:

“Although COVID– 19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization….

“OSHA’s indiscriminate approach fails to account for this crucial distinction— between occupational risk and risk more generally—and accordingly the mandate takes on the character of a general public health measure, rather than an ‘occupational safety or health standard….’

Justice Gorsuch concurred with the Court, and was joined by Justices Thomas and Alito in a concurring opinion from which I draw the following passages (internal footnotes omitted):

“I start with this Court’s precedents. There is no question that state and local authorities possess considerable power to regulate public health. They enjoy the ‘general power of governing,’ including all sovereign powers envisioned by the Constitution and not specifically vested in the federal government.

“The federal government’s powers, however, are not general but limited and divided. Not only must the federal government properly invoke a constitutionally enumerated source of authority to regulate in this area or any other. It must also act consistently with the Constitution’s separation of powers. And when it comes to that obligation, this Court has established at least one firm rule: ‘We expect Congress to speak clearly’ if it wishes to assign to an executive agency decisions ‘of vast economic and political significance.’ We sometimes call this the major questions doctrine. OSHA’s mandate fails that doctrine’s test. The agency claims the power to force 84 million Americans to receive a vaccine or undergo regular testing. By any measure, that is a claim of power to resolve a question of vast national significance. Yet Congress has nowhere clearly assigned so much power to OSHA….

“The question before us is not how to respond to the pandemic, but who holds the power to do so. The answer is clear: Under the law as it stands today, that power rests with the States and Congress, not OSHA. In saying this much, we do not impugn the intentions behind the agency’s mandate. Instead, we only discharge our duty to enforce the law’s demands when it comes to the question who may govern the lives of 84 million Americans. Respecting those demands may be trying in times of stress. But if this Court were to abide them only in more tranquil conditions, declarations of emergencies would never end and the liberties our Constitution’s separation of powers seeks to preserve would amount to little.”

This does not solve all problems, obviously. Some private entities will persist in vaccine mandates despite their injustice, irrationality, and general uselessness. Other problems, like vaccine passports, are occurring at the local level and must be dealt with at the local level — though we can hope they will resolve themselves as they destroy business and tourism.

But it is a start.

Just yesterday on the Tom Woods Show I spoke to the owner of an art gallery in New York City who is refusing to demand proof of vaccination from his patrons.

He’s a lifelong Democrat and his parents are civil-rights lawyers.

He feels like he is carrying on their tradition.

We can hope that more such people will be emboldened to speak out.

In the meantime, you will enjoy this important conversation:
Tom Woods

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stephen Breyer Is Corrupt – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 11, 2022

He fully understands that “public interest” language — the language that “justified” all of this crony capitalist regulation in the first place — is nonsense and the language of tyrants, but spouts it anyway in a most sanctimonious way. The pharmaceutical companies own Joe Biden and the Democrat party (the main legacy of Bill Cliniton), so people like Breyer must prostitute themselves in increasingly shameful and fraudulent ways.

By Thomas DiLorenzo

It was reported yesterday that during oral arguments before the supreme court Justice Stephen Breyer said that it is inconceivable that blocking Biden’s vaccine mandate for private employers is “in the public interest.”

First of all, there is no such thing as “the public interest.”  There are some 330 million people in the U.S. and we all have our interests.  This is especially true regarding the “vaccine” mandate since everyone knows that there are millions of members of the public who oppose it.  That’s why the issue is before the court.

Breyer knows this.  He knows there are tradeoffs here, but speaks as though there are not, and that allowing the mandate will benefit every single American — the “public.”  Such talk is the language of Rousseau, the intellectual godfather of communism, who claimed that there exists some mysterious “general will” that only a select few understand, and because of that understanding they are somehow empowered to use whatever force, coercion, and violence that they can muster to impose that “general will” on all of society.

Alexander Hamilton used dozens of synonyms for “the general will” to argue for myriad government interventions during his day, as I document in my book, Hamilton’s Curse.  There is even a scholarly article about Hamilton entitled “Alexander Hamilton:  Rousseau of the Right,” by Cecelia Kenyon, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 73, 1958.  Lawyers like Breyer are the legal/political descendants of Hamilton, the darling of the New York City/Broadway commie Left (and of the statist Pat Buchananite Right).

Breyer understands the economic concept of tradeoffs.  Before he was on the court he authored a textbook entitled Regulation and its Reform (1984) that was and is widely used in law schools.  It explained among other things the thinking behind the deregulation of trucking, airlines, and oil during the late 1970s/early ’80s.  That is why he is corrupt:  He fully understands that “public interest” language — the language that “justified” all of this crony capitalist regulation in the first place — is nonsense and the language of tyrants, but spouts it anyway in a most sanctimonious way.  The pharmaceutical companies own Joe Biden and the Democrat party (the main legacy of Bill Cliniton), so people like Breyer must prostitute themselves in increasingly shameful and fraudulent ways.  (Not that they don’t also own most of the Republican party as well).

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo [send him mail] is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His latest book is The Problem with Lincoln.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Austria is leading Europe down a dark path – spiked

Posted by M. C. on November 26, 2021

Compulsory vaccination is an assault on bodily autonomy.

Fraser Myers
Deputy editor

Austria is breaking new ground in Covid authoritarianism. This week the government announced that it would make vaccinations compulsory – with refusers facing fines that can eventually be converted into prison sentences. This is a wildly authoritarian move, and a dangerous blow to bodily autonomy.

Over the past two years, liberal democracies the world over have introduced unprecedented curbs on liberty in response to Covid-19. The advent of several safe and effective vaccines was supposed to put an end to this nightmare. Vaccines are still, by far, our best means to overcome the crisis and restore our freedoms. But in Austria right now, freedom seems more distant than at any point in the pandemic.

The Austrian government shocked the world last week by imposing a lockdown for the unvaccinated – making it illegal for the unvaccinated to leave the house without a state-mandated excuse. After just seven days this had morphed into a full lockdown for all Austrians. And on the same day Austria entered lockdown, the government announced its compulsory vaccination policy.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Ep. 2006 Why the Fifth Circuit Slammed the Vaccine Mandate” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on November 17, 2021

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “JUST IN: DeSantis Responds To Biden’s New OSHA Rule Setting Jan. 4 Deadline For Vaccine Mandate” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on November 5, 2021

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) slammed the Biden Administration’s announcement of a new deadline for tens of millions of health care workers, federal contractors and employees of larger businesses, all of whom must be fully vaccinated by January 4, in a move that means two-thirds of the American workforce is covered by vaccination rules.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Great Struggle of Our Time: The Battle for Reality – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on October 20, 2021

Gaslighting is now an integral part of the left’s every move, and it is sowing confusion and wreaking havoc everywhere. The gaslighters have already managed to disorient many people and weaken their hold on reality. They correctly sense that if they can press sufficiently hard, they will be able to take advantage of the disarray and implement their godless, nihilistic, inhuman, love-deprived and freedom-negating agenda.

By Vasko Kohlmayer

With societal turbulence all around us, many people feel that we are locked in some great and portentous struggle. But because it is so pervasive and multifaced, the nature of this struggle is not readily obvious. There are many fronts on which this struggle is being fought: racial relations, education, healthcare, popular culture, financial system, and freedom of speech, among others. It is not easy to make sense of it all, especially since the battles are highly pitched and emotions are running very high.

What characterizes these battles, besides their intensity, is deep polarization. The possibility of the warring camps coming together and meeting on some common ground seems to be growing more distant by the day. There is even talk that the two sides will either come to blows, or they will each go their own way in some form of secession.

Many have observed that the contenders seem to be separated by an unbridgeable gap, and yet no one has been able to explain the nature of this gap, or what exactly it is that separates the mindsets of the opposing sides.

In our view the great struggle in the grip of which we find ourselves cuts much deeper than the immediate issues we argue over. The real fight extends beyond any particular point of public friction.

The great battle of our time is a battle about the very nature of reality. More precisely, what the two sides war over on the most fundamental level is what constitutes truth and how it should be determined.

To shed light on this dynamic, let us take one of the heated controversies of the present time. For this we choose transgenderism. This is an especially suitable example for two reasons: this issue is highly divisive and polarizing, and it delineates the opposing camps sharply and clearly.

As you may know, transgender advocates claim that biological males can become women and vice versa.

Understandably, many people find this claim rather far-fetched. For one thing, it does not feel true, given that the evidence of our senses seems to refute it. When, for example, people look at transgender “women” – i.e., biological men who say that they are women – most people immediately recognize that these are not real females. What most people see is men who pretend to be girls. This is how the human mind – in the vast majority of instances – interprets sensory input that it receives upon encountering such persons.

Rachel Levine, President Biden’s Assistant Secretary for Health. Few people would perceive Dr. Levine is a genuine woman. (YouTube screengrab)

And yet transgender advocates vehemently maintain that this is not the correct interpretation of visual data. They insist that what is in front of our eyes are not men who pose as girls but real girls.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ron Paul on President Biden’s New Vaccine Mandate – Campaign for Liberty

Posted by M. C. on September 17, 2021

POSTED BY Ron PaulSeptember 10, 2021

Campaign for Liberty Chairman Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding President Biden’s vaccine mandate on all businesses with 100 or more employees:

“President Biden’s executive order forcing companies with 100 or more employees to require COVID vaccination or weekly testing has no basis in science, the Constitution, or the principles of a free society. It also sets a dangerous precedent that can and will be used to justify future federal mandates on businesses and their employees.

“My Campaign for Liberty group will mobilize pro-liberty Americans to resist these mandates and other abuses of power in regard to COVID by authoritarian politicians and bureaucrats to expand their power and shrink our liberties.”

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

WaPo Editors: “Liberty” Requires Us to Implement Vaccine Passports | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 21, 2021

Mandating private and government employees to be immunized against covid-19 and requiring the use of standardized electronic passes as proof of immunization across the nation is what liberty is made of,

Alice Salles

Mandating private and government employees to be immunized against covid-19 and requiring the use of standardized electronic passes as proof of immunization across the nation is what liberty is made of, the editors of the Washington Post argued last week

State governors such as Florida governor Ron DeSantis (R), who are blocking or attempting to block “government agencies, local businesses or both from mandating vaccination,” are engaged in “efforts that fly in the face of the values of liberty that their proponents purport to defend,” the editors added. 

“The highly transmissible delta variant of the coronavirus has ushered in mask mandates in some places, but vaccination remains the key to containing the pandemic once and for all,” the editors wrote. But to ensure we can all trust those who claim to be vaccinated, they added, states should be “developing a smartphone-compatible certificate that’s easily downloadable and easily scannable.” 

With this standardized approach to the vaccine mandate, they argued, Americans who are reluctant to get the jab would be forced to think differently. “At the least, enabling vaccine requirements will help organizations keep their spaces safer. At best, they also could inspire some holdouts to get the shot at long last.”

But if “safety” is so important to these editors, shouldn’t we also consider the safety of medical treatments (i.e., vaccines) themselves? Moreover, shouldn’t we consider the ways that providers of vaccines can be held accountable when their vaccines do harm? 

That discussion, apparently, is not on the table. I have yet to see a proponent of covid-19 vaccine mandates that talks about the vaccine industry’s immunity before federal law and how the current vaccination campaign is just a continuation of that scheme.

Ronald Reagan’s Socialized Medicine 

The covid-19 vaccine isn’t the first inoculation program that is both financially backed by the government and immune from legal accountability in US history. 

Thanks to President Ronald Reagan’s National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, vaccine makers are able to develop vaccines, many of which are produced using unethical methods such as using cells taken from aborted fetal tissue, deliberately mislead patients and health officials by making false efficacy claims, and go on doing so unabatedly even after countless victims come forward saying they have been injured—sometimes for life—by their products. 

Due to the 1986 law, these victims don’t get the chance to have their cases heard by a jury of their peers. Instead, their cases must necessarily be funneled through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which was created in 1988 after the NCVIA was signed into law.

The VICP is in place to shield manufacturers from liability related to their vaccine products, as explained by AMA Journal of Ethics.

The act establishes a special court program for vaccine injury claims that caps damages and allows for the injured party to be compensated without having to prove that the maker committed any wrongdoing. (emphasis added)

Since its inception, the VICP has paid out about $4.6 billion in settlements. But while the VICP is funded by an excise tax on each vaccine purchased, it is run by the US government. 

Considering that pharmaceuticals were threatening to give up on producing vaccines due to the expensive injury-related court battles prior to 1986 and that they remain unwilling to stand behind their products’ safety to this day, it is clear that given the opportunity to function in a market unprotected by the federal government, these manufacturers would likely have not managed to stay in business. It is in this context that the covid-19 vaccines exist. 

Because currently the covid vaccines do not have full Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorization, injury claims must be funneled through a different but similar program, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), run by the Health and Human Services Department. But it is only a matter of time before the vaccine “courts” take over. 

With record-breaking numbers of adverse reactions reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and growing concerns regarding the covid vaccines’ effectiveness, paper pushers are promising more mandates will come once the FDA concedes the vaccine manufacturers full approval. Considering that all other vaccines currently in use regularly across the nation were given the same FDA approval and yet remain immune from legal accountability, why should we trust whatever the health czars have to say? Author:

Alice Salles

Alice Salles was born and raised in Brazil but has lived in America for over ten years. She now lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana with her husband Nick Hankoff and their three children.  

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

RFK, Jr. to Rutgers President: COVID Vaccine Mandate Violates Federal Law • Children’s Health Defense

Posted by M. C. on March 30, 2021

The announcement last week by Rutgers University that it would require all students to get the COVID vaccine prompted CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to remind university officials that federal law prohibits mandating Emergency Use Authorization vaccines.

By  Children’s Health Defense Team

Rutgers University last week announced it will require all students enrolled for the 2021 fall semester to be vaccinated for COVID-19.

The announcement prompted Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to remind university officials that federal law prohibits mandating products approved under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

In a letter to Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway, Kennedy, who also serves as chief legal counsel for CHD, wrote:

“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.’”

The reason for the right of refusal stems from the fact that EUA products are by definition experimental, Kennedy wrote. “Under the Nuremberg Code, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is ‘absolutely essential,’” Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy said forced participation in a medical experiment could result in injury.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, who also spoke out against Rutgers’ policy, agreed. Specifically, he said, students should be pre-screened for COVID infection before vaccination.

In an open letter to Rutgers, Noorchashm, a surgeon and patient safety advocate, wrote:

“While I fully agree with your policy of maximal immunity for all students and faculty attending in-person on the Rutgers campuses, you must also remain 100% cognizant of a potential danger of indiscriminate vaccination to some of your students. This potential danger is not only a safety risk, it would also pose a risk of liability to your university.”

Noorchashm has been an outspoken critic of indiscriminate mass vaccination because he believes people already or currently infected with COVID are at risk of severe injury, including death.

As he told The Defender last week, viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. According to Noorchashm, when the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting.

“This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination,” Noorchashm said.

Holloway last week told The New York Times the vaccine mandate will apply to Rutgers’ three main campuses and that students will have to show “proof of vaccination” before moving into a dorm or attending in-person classes. Students will be able to file for medical or religious exemptions, and those attending online or off-campus programs will also be exempt.

NBC News last week reached out to several universities and colleges, which said they would encourage students to get the vaccine, but hadn’t yet decided on mandates.

Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, told NBC:

“I’m just starting to hear discussion about mandating vaccines, and everyone I’ve talked to has said that they are leaning in the direction of mandating vaccines not just with the students, but with faculty and staff, as well.”

According to CHD President Mary Holland, federal law prohibits employers from mandating EUA vaccines.

In December 2020, CHD published “Vaccine Mandates: An Erosion of Civil Rights?” The downloadable e-book examines the history and consequences of vaccine mandates, and what you can do to protect yourself and your family members as public officials ramp up the pressure for COVID vaccines.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »