The DOJ Cannot Mandate Vaccines

July 29, 2021

1141

Olivia Bowick

July 29, 2021

The DOJ Cannot Mandate Vaccines

The DOJ cannot make law.

[People should] “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable them to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” – The Nuremberg Code

The Department of Justice has issued an opinion regarding vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization. This opinion is an incorrect interpretation of Title 21 US Code 360bbb-c (which is the law regarding authorization of emergency use medical products). This law protects your right of informed consent. Under this law, no Emergency Use Authorized medical device can be mandated, this includes all Covid-19 vaccines, all masks, and PCR tests and the option to accept or refuse all products is required. Not only is the erroneous statement from the DOJ useless, but it is also misleading. The way the media has reported this news is nothing short of careless, sleight of hand propaganda. The DOJ does not make law, only the legislature can make law.

There is plenty of case law regarding people’s right to informed consent. In addition to US Title Code 21, Chapter 9, Subchapter V, Part E, Section 360bbb-3, which protects your right to refuse experimental vaccines, the Nuremberg Code of 1947 established an internationally agreed upon standard of medical ethics. This code is rooted in a requirement of voluntary informed consent and protects the right to bodily autonomy. The DOJ’s declaration fails to consider whether unconstitutional mandates for masks or experimental drug trials violate the Nuremberg Code. The Nuremberg Code states that every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable them to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” This concerns all medical experimental drugs, including the current Covid-19 vaccine. The Nuremberg Code applies to every individual. This code extends to the military and prohibits them from requiring experimental vaccines. The case of Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003) set a substantial precedent and proves that even the military may not mandate experimental drugs. The court ruled that due to AVA’s investigational status, it was authorized for an “unapproved purpose” and as a result, the DoD was in violation of the law. In conclusion, “the women and men of our armed forces put their lives on the line every day to preserve and safeguard the freedoms that all Americans cherish and enjoy. Absent informed consent or presidential waiver, the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs.”

Employers cannot demand employees to disclose their personal medical information because their right to privacy is protected under law. Any discrimination on the basis of perceived medical status is in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). If the employer were to assert the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated) prevents employment, then the employer now has to prove that the employee is a direct threat. This is a very difficult burden for employers to meet.

There are many previous cases of employees with HIV and AIDS being discriminated against based on a perceived medical disability which resulted in hefty legal fees and fines for the employer, in addition to paying millions for damages. There are also several important case laws that clearly stand for the rule that those perceived as suffering from a particular handicap are in the same protected class as those who are actually handicapped. In the case of Andersen v. Exxon, 89 N.J. at 495, n. 2., and Rogers v. Campbell Foundry, 185 N.J. Super, at 112, these cases are reasonably interpreted as “the laws against discrimination protect persons who are discriminated against because they have a medical disability and they protect persons who are discriminated against because they are perceived to have a medical disability.” In conclusion, the court states “Prejudice in the sense of a judgement or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be…. nonexistent (see Andersen v. Exxon).”

Lastly, an employer can be held liable under other federal and state laws if they require participation in a medical experiment as a condition of employment. It is in violation of HIPPA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles. Forced vaccinations constitute a form of battery under applicable state tort laws. The Supreme Court explicitly states “no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others.” Union PAC. RY. CO V. BOTSFORD May 25, 1891.

The FDA does not make law. The CDC does not make law. The DOJ does not make law.

Sources:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3

https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-rumsfeld-6

https://casetext.com/case/rogers-v-campbell-foundry-co?q=rogers%20v%20campbell&PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=C&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case

https://casetext.com/case/andersen-v-exxon-co?PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=C&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case

https://casetext.com/case/pfaus-v-palermo-et-al?PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=C&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case

https://casetext.com/case/union-pac-ry-co-v-botsford?PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=C&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case

https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf