From Heartland Daily News

By

From presidential candidate Donald Trump’s promise to reinstate military members who were fired for not getting COVID-19 shots to a federal court decision favoring employee vaccination preferences, vaccine mandates at work appear to be coming to an end.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Illinois ruled employees at Wisconsin health care system Aspirus, Inc. can go forward with their claim that they were unlawfully denied a religious exemption from having to accept a COVID-19 shot. Aspirus claimed the employees’ real reason for not wanting the shots was secular, not religious.

Public Employees Protected

In 2023, Texas updated Section 81B.003 of the state’s health and safety code prohibiting vaccination mandates for state and local government employees. Before the change, employees had to prove a health risk or religious convictions to be granted an exemption.

Texas has taken the lead in prohibiting government agencies from issuing mandates for people to get vaccinated. Similar laws have passed in Florida and 11 other states: Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah.

Private Employees’ Rights Unclear

Private employers are a different matter says Javier Perez, a board-certified labor and employment law attorney with Crain Brogdon LLP in Dallas

“Despite the new protective laws for [government] employees, unless there is a specific law prohibiting employer vaccine mandates, employers can still, generally speaking, impose workplace vaccine mandates so long as they do not discriminate,” said Perez, a board-certified labor and employment law attorney with Crain Brogdon LLP in Dallas. “The employer has wide discretion to decide what the rules of the road are in their workplace.”

The dynamics in the workplace have changed, says Perez.

“My sense of the job market is that employers can replace people who won’t comply,” said Perez. “But with a lot of jobs pivoting to remote work—more than we thought possible—it’s kind of an easy way, on a temporary basis, to work around those risks.”

Mandates ‘Have Backfired’

Despite the lack of clarity in employer-employee relations, the tide is turning against vaccine mandates and other COVID-related work rules, in particular failures to accommodate religious exemptions, says Douglas P. Seaton, J.D, Ph.D., president of Upper Midwest Law Center.

“These mandates, based on shoddy or no science, have backfired because they have resulted in serious levels of suspicion of the bona fides of all new government regulation, especially when ‘science’ is claimed to be the rationale,” said Seaton.

‘Simply Shut Up’

In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Massachusetts could not pass a vaccination mandate to protect the individual but could do so “to protect the public from a dangerous communicable disease.”

Historically, the public health bureaucracy had been relatively circumspect in exercising that enormous power to control individual behavior, says Linda Gorman, director of the Independence Institute’s Health Care Policy Center. Things began to change in the 1990s when public health researchers and government health bureaucracies were captured by the notion that the British, Canadian, and European health care systems were better than the U.S. system because they were government-controlled.

“They apparently believed that health would improve, and costs would fall, if patients, doctors, and suppliers would simply shut up and do as they were told,” said Gorman.

‘Power Is Attractive’

The COVID-19 pandemic tested that power. Instead of systematically providing the best available information to individuals about the new COVID vaccine and allowing informed consent, the bureaucrats resorted to brute force to make people do as they were told, says Gorman.

“Power is attractive, and I see no sign that the health bureaucracy will give up its vast powers without a fight,” said Gorman. “The tragedy is the backfire has made people suspicious about all vaccine recommendations, and unknown numbers of people will die and suffer severe health consequences as a result.”

The COVID overreach made credentialed experts’ ethical failings evident, says Gorman.

“It is now obvious that government health bureaucracies see no harm in lying about efficacy, disease risk, and data quality in order to achieve their own end,” said Gorman.

“The first question is, ‘What do we do about it?’” said Gorman. “The second is, “Who should people trust for the accurate information they need to make informed decisions about their medical care?”

Kenneth Artz ([email protected]) writes from Tyler, Texas.

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Rep. Paul Gosar’s End the Vaccine Carveout Act would eliminate the general immunity vaccine manufacturers enjoy from vaccine injury civil suits under the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona introduced a bill Thursday that would end pharmaceutical companies’ shield against liability for any potential harmful effects of the vaccines they manufacture.

 H.R. 9828, the End the Vaccine Carveout Act, would allow individuals to “bring a civil action against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer in a State or Federal court for damages arising from such injury or death,” according to an advance copy of the text provided to LifeSiteNews.

This would eliminate the general immunity vaccine manufacturers enjoy under the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which instead establishes a compensation program for victims. Gosar’s bill allows for civil actions to be pursued regardless of whether a victim has filed a petition with the program, although ultimately receiving an award from one would invalidate a petition to the other.

“Government bureaucrats and scientists responsible for approving vaccines are in bed with Big Pharma, often owning pharmaceutical stocks, serving as consultants and receiving lucrative contracts from pharmaceutical companies that pressure them to produce favorable results which is in direct violation of federal law,” Gosar said in a press release. “Big Pharma doesn’t deserve a get-out-of-jail-free card for injuries caused by their harmful vaccines.”

The question of vaccine safety has become more mainstream in recent years due to the controversy surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time  vaccines usually take under the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.

A large body of evidence identifies significant risks to the COVID vaccines. Among it, the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 37,910 deaths, 217,931 hospitalizations, 21,917 heart attacks, and 28,602 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of September 6, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine  “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID vaccines, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and offered several theories for a causal link.

In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the vaccines’ manufacturers is slated to release a highly anticipated report on the shots, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of misrepresentation for calling the shots “safe and effective.”

Yet so far, Big Pharma has largely escaped accountability thanks to both the aforementioned 1986 law and the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the PREP Act empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Near the beginning of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak, the Trump administration invoked the Act in declaring the virus a “public health emergency.”

Under this “sweeping” immunity, CRS explained, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those countermeasures are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from those countermeasures, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”

Many hope that by going after Big Pharma for misrepresentations surrounding their products rather than the products themselves, efforts like the Kansas suit can circumvent that hurdle to impose consequences on those responsible for the shots.