Discover more from Popular Rationalism
Ninth Circuit Court Judges SHOCKED at CA COVID-19 Mandates in a School District
Hope for those who want bodily autonomy and integrity! Implications for school mandates for children.
In the evolving context of the COVID-19 issues, the legal ramifications of public health decisions have become a focal point of societal discourse. Here at Popular Rationalism we educated the public day after day on the OSHA Workplace Mandate power grab, and you, dear readers, did your part by sharing those articles. Together we helped lawyers, politicians and employers learn the facts about COVID-19 jab lack of efficacy and the stupidity of workplace mandates.
This week, a case (22-55908 Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Alberto Carvalho) overseen by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, included a quote from a judge that will resonate far and wide among those concerned with COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates. Hundreds of people have lost their jobs and livelihood to avoid being force-jabbed. The judges informed the school’s attorney that Jacobsen is irrelevant because the vaccines do not prevent transmission.
The Amazingly Correct Quotes
Here are two amazing quotes from the judges:
“I mean I’m honestly shocked…
“There's no rational basis for believing that someone who got a a two-shot sequence in 2021 in March, say of 2021 has any protection against transmission now in September of 2023. (That) seems to me to be irrational (emphasis added).. Even the CDC does not claim that a shot sequence two and a half years ago provides immunity against what's circulating today and so you that person is exempted - even though they have absolutely no (protection), so this just seems completely arbitrary.
The video is provided below.
This epiphany will have far-reaching implications for vaccination mandates in the United States. The case serves as a microcosm of the broader legal and ethical debates surrounding COVID-19 vaccination mandates, particularly in the context of employment and education.
Background and Facts of the Case
The case in question involves a multi-faceted legal battle between the Health Freedom Defense Fund and the Los Angeles Unified School District. At the heart of the matter is the ethical and legal validity of imposing COVID-19 vaccination mandates, especially as a precondition for employment. The case was presided over by Judges Hawkins, Nelson, and Collins.
Scientific Data and Its Legal Implications
The legal arguments in this case are further complicated by emerging scientific data. Studies, such as one published in The Lancet, have shown that COVID-19 vaccines do not halt transmission, as vaccinated individuals can still carry high viral loads. Moreover, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that vaccine efficacy against severe disease can wane to as low as 6% within 120 to 170 days after receiving a booster. Case counting issues aside, this waning efficacy is even shown to be exacerbated with each subsequent booster by published studies, as highlighted by a study in Nature.
Legal Arguments and Broader Implications
The Health Freedom Defense Fund argues that forced vaccinations are an infringement upon an individual's right to bodily integrity. They cite previous cases involving forced medical procedures as a basis for their argument. On the other hand, the Los Angeles Unified School District maintains that vaccination mandates are a legal condition of employment, a stance that has been upheld in previous legal cases.
The broader implications of this case are significant, especially for vaccination mandates in educational settings, both for adults and children. The landmark case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the plaintiff was fined rather than isolated for refusing vaccination, is often cited as a precedent. However, the coercion by threat of work and income loss in the current scenario is seen by the judges to be equated to forced vaccinations, as people have a constitutional right to work to sustain their lives.
Definitive and final rulings on COVID-19 vaccine mandates, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) being barred from enforcing a vaccine mandate on employers, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) weighing in on the issue, make this case a simple one for the judges.
These rulings indicate a judicial system finally coming to terms with the balance between public health and individual freedoms.
It is noteworthy that the School District lawyer actually made the false claim that smallpox vaccines are mandated in the US.
The case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals serves as a critical point of discussion for legal professionals, policymakers, and the public. It brings into crystal clear focus the fact that judges can, indeed, navigate details involving science, law, and ethics, especially as scientific data increasingly shows that COVID-19 vaccines do not offer protection against transmission or severe disease. This case enforces societal norms and legal precedents. Given the childhood vaccination mandates in various states also enforce aging vaccines that do not prevent transmission (notably, pertussis, measles, mumps), legal eagles would do well to understand and use the lack of perfect protection and the waning efficacy facts about childhood vaccines. Jacobsen may well now be seen as irrelevant.
This case could very well serve as a watershed moment in how we approach arbitrary and capricious vaccine mandates in the future.
What are your thoughts? Leave a comment and please - share this important post!
Supreme Court of the United States. (2022). "Biden v. Missouri." SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/biden-v-missouri/.
Supreme Court of the United States. (1905). "Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11." Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11.
Popular Rationalism is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.