Posted on 11/06/2021 2:33:59 PM PDT by TChad
Some are rejecting the exemptions. I think in New York state and municipal, they are taking only Christian Science seriously. (And probably not if you joined the church yesterday.)
You go gurl.
Good question. I don't know.
Incorrect. A Private company can mandate anything they want. They can mandate you wear green to work every day. But those companies that require vaccinations will just lose employees to companies that do not. It will regulate itself out of excistence.
I don't know what cases you are citing but the Nuremberg Code has most certainly been cited in U.S. case law.
The Significance of the Nuremberg Code April 4, 2021 - Alliance for Human Research Protection Advancing Voluntary, Informed Consent to Medical Intervention2. The 1947 Nuremberg Code is the most important legal document in the history of medical research ethics. It established 10 foundational principles of ethical clinical research.
The first and foremost principle is unequivocal: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”.It prohibits research to be conducted on human beings without the informed consent of the individual.The significance of the Nuremberg Code is as follows:
The Nuremberg Code was formulated by prominent US government jurists in consultation with prominent US medical consultants;It had the multilateral agreement of the governments of the US, USSR, France and the UK;
The Nuremberg Code extended human rights beyond the borders of individual countries;
The right of Informed Consent is recognized in time of peace and in time of war.
The Nuremberg Code provides legal justification to litigate violations of informed consent.
6. In 2001, the Maryland Court of Appeal explicitly cited the Nuremberg Code as a source of legally enforceable ethical standards in the case against the Kennedy Krieger Institute.
The case involved a government lead abatement experiment that exposed inner city Black toddlers to lead paint. The purpose was to record the damaging effects of lead. The parents were not informed about the purpose or the risks.
Grimes / Higgins v Kennedy Krieger Institute, Maryland Court of Appeals, (link to CaseLaw.FindLaw.com) 366 Md 29; 782 A2d 807 (2001)
(FWIW Kennedy Krieger Institute lost.)
Court of Appeals of Maryland. - Ericka GRIMES v. KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE, INC. From CaseLaw.FindLaw.comAdditionally, the Nuremberg Code, intended to be applied internationally, and never expressly rejected in this country, inherently and implicitly, speaks strongly to the existence of special relationships imposing ethical duties on researchers who conduct nontherapeutic experiments on human subjects.
The Nuremberg Code specifically requires researches to make known to human subjects of research “all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected, and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.” (Emphasis added.)
The breach of obligations imposed on researchers by the Nuremberg Code, might well support actions sounding in negligence in cases such as those at issue here.
(snip)
This is entirely consistent with the principles found in the Nuremberg Code.
(the court itself cites "The complete text of the Nuremberg Code" in footnote #31 of its decision in favor of the plaintiff against KKI.
And there have been other cases, heard in court, where the Nuremberg Code was cited.
7. In 2009, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Southern District of New York cited the Nuremberg Code as:“the universally accepted norm in customary international law regarding nonconsensual medical experimentation.”The case involved Pfizer which conducted an unapproved, trial of its experimental antibiotic, Trovan on children in Nigeria. The court found Pfizer guilty.
Rabi Abdullahi, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d (2d Cir. 2009)
See post #86.
Instead of playing lawyer, try to focus on what those cases were about.
Abdullahi deal with the Alien Tort Claims Act.
Grimes dealt with a non-therapeutic lead paint research experiment and it’s a State Court with a decision grounded entirely in Maryland law.
Now, cite a COVID-19 lawsuit in which the Nuremberg Code was affirmed as a basis for a cause of action.
Cutting and pasting from social media click-bait websites won’t cut it either. I want you to cite decisions involving COVID-19 issues.
Please show your work. :)
** There is the EO **
What EO ? can you point me to the #? I don’t see it in the Fed. Register. I see it for Fed. Contractors and Fed. Employees. Maybe its name hides its contents. The RATs are good for that.
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/joe-biden/2021
thanks
The EO I was remarking on is the contactor one. EO 14042
Good place, IMO, to track goings on there is https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/
“Safer Federal Workforce” appears to be an ad hoc group (”Task Force”), being given the authority to promulgate regulations against contractors.
Q: Does this clause apply in States or localities that seek to prohibit compliance with any of the workplace safety protocols set forth in the Task Force Guidance for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors?
A: Yes. These requirements are promulgated pursuant to Federal law and supersede any contrary State or local law or ordinance. Additionally, nothing in the Task Force Guidance shall excuse noncompliance with any applicable State law or municipal ordinance establishing more protective workplace safety protocols than those established under the Task Force Guidance.
Link to OSHA thing (not EO 14042) in Federal register ...
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-11-05/pdf/2021-23643.pdf
The difference is, Demonrats have control of many courts, and the megaphone of the media, and they can say whatever they want, whether it’s true or not.
thanx...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.