Not just legal definition. The author states its not a vaccine by the cdc and fda’s definitions.
As per it being “old” law, thats absurd. You want to ignore precedents and rulings because they’re old and you dont like them. You sound like a socialist libtard. Thats their arguments for getting rid of established laws and precedents they dont like. And further its not a podunk small court case, it was a SCOTUS level ruling/case.
“Not just legal definition. The author states its not a vaccine by the cdc and fda’s definitions.”
Based on the legal precedents.
“As per it being “old” law, thats absurd. “
No. “As per” it being written by lawyers, and obviously there were special interests behind the legal definitions.