Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bill; All
Part (III) of the relevant part of EUA law, excerpted below, reasonably indicates that an employee can be fired for refusing jab imo.

On the other hand, speaking of experimental "vaccine" mandates, part (II) of law excerpted below also mandates that the person receiving the jab is reasonably officially informed of the pros and cons of taking jab.

Instead, employees who have responsibly researched alleged problems with experimental “vaccine” want to refuse mandatory jab from employers who are seemingly up to their eyeballs in politically correct, pro-jab government / media propaganda imo.

21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies
"(e) Conditions of authorization
(1) Unapproved product
(A) Required conditions
(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed
(I) that the Secretary [Secretary of Health and Human Services] has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III) 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."

VIDEO: Rand Paul Addresses the Delta Variant and Covid Misinformation (7.28.21)

For possible insight as to what may be happening behind the pro-jab TV cameras, consider that new Big Pharma "vaccine" billionaires may be helping to get desperate Democrats reelected imo.

Corrections, insights welcome.

82 posted on 07/30/2021 9:53:43 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Amendment10

“Section 564(l) provides that ‘this section [i.e., section 564] only has legal effect on a person who carries out an activity for which an authorization under this section is issued.’”

“This provision expressly forecloses any limitation on the activities of the vast majority of entities who would insist upon vaccination requirements, because most do not carry out any activity for which an EUA is issued.”

https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/07/DOJ-Vaccine-Memo.pdf

My possible response:
The large overreaching entities provide PPACA health care coverage that generally pays for Covid vaccination (and quite often by self-administered plans). The federal government has even claimed that mere failure to purchase health care cost coverage was an activity. The Florida Department of Health made me fill out a form in which they asked about my insurance status before each Moderna shot was given to me. Payment is a critical activity in health care in the USA, believe me.


85 posted on 07/30/2021 10:05:33 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson