[MNJohnnie]

Anyone know how this works? Do the legal challenges start once it is published in the Federal Register?

[Caipirabob]

I’ve travelled all over the nation, partied at every happy hour we could make and eaten out at restaurants, both full and nigh empty for 22 months now. I doubt I’m “just lucky” in not catching the plague. If I didn’t take the shot before, why would I do it now? What benefit am I gaining that I haven’t experienced in the past 22 months?

Mother is elderly, yeah I recommended it. Brothers have circumstances that immediately impacted vulnerable people. They had it, too. All are fine.

Yet I see no need for this now. The storm is waning…

[BiglyCommentary]

“or make them get tested for COVID-19 once a week. “

If that was a cheap ($3-$5), do it at home test, that would be workable.

[mewzilla]

Related...

Here’s Why the Vaccines Aren’t Working A Primer on the COVID Vaccines

[eartick]

2 million bureaucrats runningthis country and making laws while our so called elected officials sit back, scratch their cod’s and draw a nice tidy paycheck

[Sirius Lee]

We’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers.

The addled asshole just admitted that the frankenshots don't work.

[wastedyears]

Probably some on here that will support that.

Nevermind that nothing available here has been granted full authorization.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Yay! More worker strikes and misery for us all!

Only 38 more months to go! *SPIT*

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

So what businesses are exempt?

[mewzilla]

Meanwhile, get a load of this from Upstate NY and Ithaca, AKA The City of Evil...

Cornell experimenting with shorter quarantining for breakthrough cases

[montag813]

Abbott moved his pawn, now Biden moved his.

[mewzilla]

Meanwhile, from NYC...

NYC’s Unvaccinated Teachers Must Waive Right To Sue If They Want To Keep Health Benefits

Right to sue over vaccine mandate.

[Cboldt]

It’s not a rule when first published. It is a proposed rule, open for public comments.

Federal rulemaking is “administrative law,” promulgated by a set of huge unaccountable bureacracies.

https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

[ez]

Mao starved out a good proportion of his country. We are well on our way.

[Eleutheria5]

Whatever it is, I'm against it.



What should be the GOP anthem

[grey_whiskers]

[Tennessee Conservative]

If that were a real vaccination you wouldn’t need to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated.

[Bloodandgravy]

They are going to bring the economy to a halt and then...

[Maris Crane]

I find it hard to believe that ANYONE...even the most died in the wool leftie...could look at that KOOK PSAKI...and agree with her, or like her, or find her honest or comforting.

The woman is a CREEP. And I mean that in the worst way. YECH.

[Political Junkie Too]

The EUA vaccines require a patient informed consent form to be signed. United States case law says that any consent given under duress is not consent under the law.

It seems to me that forcing someone to get a vaccine or lose their jobs, their pay, and their family security, is the utmost coercive duress possible on someone.

Nobody can give a legally binding consent under these conditions, and for that reason these mandates to take the EUA vaccines should be challenged in court.

Here is the relevant section of US Code 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies:

• (e) Conditions of authorization
  • (1) Unapproved product
    • (A) Required conditions
      • With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the Secretary, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1), shall, for a person who carries out any activity for which the authorization is issued, establish such conditions on an authorization under this section as the Secretary finds necessary or appropriate to protect the public health, including the following:
        • (i)Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that health care professionals administering the product are informed—
          • (I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
          • (II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of the emergency use of the product, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
          • (III) of the alternatives to the product that are available, and of their benefits and risks.
        • (ii)Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
          • (I) that the Secretary 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.
        • (iii) Appropriate conditions for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the emergency use of the product.
        • (iv)cFor manufacturers of the product, appropriate conditions concerning recordkeeping and reporting, including records access by the Secretary, with respect to the emergency use of the product.

  ---

Note that this section is for Emergency Use Authorization and includes informed consent and the option to refuse.

I underlined the part about "consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product" because I believe this pertains to the medical "consequences" of not taking the drug. It does NOT give permission to businesses to place "consequences" on employees who don't take the drug. The former gives the recipient the choice, the latter is coercive consent under duress.

-PJ