RFK, Jr. to Rutgers President: COVID Vaccine Mandate Violates Federal Law

childrenshealthdefense.org ^ | 03/29/21 | Children's Health Defense Team

[yelostar]

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.

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.’”

[where's_the_Outrage?]

“Not BS here in the US.”

Not what you said, you stated “Nobody” with no qualifier.

Be specific.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

At the base, base level, it comes down to liability. If people get force-fed some flaky new vaccine and things go sideways, they can credibly sue everyone in sight up and down the chain. Have those Rutgers nitwits bothered to consult their legal counsel concerning risk assessment and liability? If they stuck with their mandate and students keeled over from it they could be sued into ruination.

 

 

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Nuremberg

[metmom]

The post I was responding to was about federal law.

Are you just looking for an argument for the sake of it?

Cause I’m not playing.

[yelostar]

And what will RFK Jr. say when Uncle Joe Stolen says he’s going to mandate vaccines?

Then you hope the legal/judicial process begins to play out. But who knows.

[fella]

Law?

Law?

We doon need no stinking law.

[where's_the_Outrage?]

Nope, not looking for argument.

However there is a difference between national and international travel, federal law has different restrictions. Unfortunately federal law is not being upheld for entrance into the USA.

One set of rules for those trying to obey the law, another set for democrats. Where are the covid passport requirements for illegals?

So can the US impose travel restrictions such as a COVID immunizations on incoming? I think yes.

[fella]

Legally and medically the mRNA shots are not vaccines but are genetic treatments that alter a persons DNA.

The only protection these treatments have is the legal protection from all liability given to the manufactures.

[Grampa Dave]

I’m not a lawyer, but I think that you interpreted it correctly.

Individual businesses like those with no shirt/no service rule can apply it to their potential customers re vaccines.

If they do, they might lose business or gain depending on their clientele.

Again that is their choice not mandating.

[WildHighlander57]

yelostar wrote:

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

Has CHD brought suit against companies that mandate their employees get vaccinated?

[mewzilla]

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/

[yelostar]

Has CHD brought suit against companies that mandate their employees get vaccinated?

If they haven't yet, I sure hope they are planning to.

[WildHighlander57]

They’re gonna have to go up against this an employment law firm that is pushing back on anyone objecting to wuhanvirus jab mandate by employers:

https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2020/12/articles/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-employees/

This is gonna make anyone with health or religious reasons into second class citizens; not every job can be work from home.

BUT- what if a business had previously had a modified work-from-home, where one half of the day was work at home, and the other half was work at the factory?

There’s the accommodation, so could people use that as a basis for refusing the shot, along with health & religious reasons?

We need high powered law firms like judicial watch, ACLJ, and there’s another one; can’t remember the name, to push back.

[yelostar]

We need high powered law firms like judicial watch, ACLJ, and there’s another one; can’t remember the name, to push back.

Except they've all been abnormally quiet - about this issue - for some reason.