117 Texas Hospital Employees Wanted About COVID Vaccine Order – Do They Have a Case? • Protecting the Health of Children

Defender experienced censorship on many social channels. Be sure to keep in touch with news that matters subscribe to our top news of the day. It’s free.

A hospital in Texas is hit by a lawsuit Friday 117 employees claimed their employer had made them vaccinated COVID-19 “guinea pig.”

The plaintiffs, employees of Methodist in Houston, accused the hospital of violating the law by requesting shots as a condition of work, forcing employees to “subject themselves in medical experimentation as a necessity to feed their families. ”They asks a temporary order to prevent the hospital from terminating the work of people who refuse to take the shot.

Houston Methodist is a network that manages eight hospitals and has more than 26,000 employees. The hospital’s CEO Dr. Marc Boom sent a letter to employees in April saying they needed to be vaccinated on June 7, or risk being suspended and finishing work, according to The Washington Post.

The lawsuit, filed in state court, Houston Methodist’s said vaccine mandate passed to Nuremberg Code in 1947, banning forced medical experiments and mandating voluntary consent. The code is made after World War II in response to the medical atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis against prisoners in concentration camps.

Attorney Jared Woodfill, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of 117 hospital staff, told ABC News The Houston Methodist forced employees to take the shot to improve hospital revenue and it was “a serious and blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code and public policy in the state of Texas.”

“Methodist Hospital is coercion of its employees to become a human ‘guinea pig’ as a condition for continued employment, ”according to the indictment. The complaint identifies COVID vaccines as a “experiment COVID-19 mRNA injection of gene modification. ”

Leading plaintiff Jennifer Bridges said even if he carries “every vaccine known to man,” he is afraid of COVID the safety of the vaccine has not been proven.

Some experts exploding accusations that the vaccines in the COVID experiment, said to have passed rigorous testing, have been shown to be much safer and have no capacity to DNA modification.

“This claim is unbelievable,” Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University, told The Washington Post. “There are thousands of people who are in phase 3 clinical trials for mRNA vaccines, and no safety concerns have been found.”

The data was released on Friday through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Bad Vacation Reporting System showed 262,521 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 4,406 deaths and 21,537 serious injuries between December 14, 2020 and May 21, 2021.

Can owners mandate EUA products?

of Pfizer, Modern or Johnson and Johnson’s COVID vaccines have received full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They still are Emergency Use Permit (USA) products.

According to lawyers Mary Holland and Greg Glaser, “Emergency Use Authorization” means that any product bearing this designation must be voluntary. Under 21 USC § 360bbb-3, “Permission for medical products to be used in emergencies”:

(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is supplied are notified –

(I) that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] allowed emergency use of the product

(II) the substantial knowledge and potential benefits and risks of such use, and how long such benefits and risks have not been known; and

(III) the option to accept or refuse to manage the product, the consequences, if any, of the refusal to manage the product, and the product options available and their benefits and risks.

According to attorney Ray L. Flores II, who now charges these matters, “individuals must be notified under 21 USC § 360bbb-3 (e) (1) (a) (ii) (III) the option to accept or reject product management, the consequences, if any, of refusing product management, and the product alternatives available and their benefits and risks. “

“This ethical language,‘ to accept or reject ’an unapproved medical product, frames a person’s free choice,” Flores said. “While statutory language means‘ consequences of refusing to handle the product, ’the logical reading of the phrase is about the medical consequences of refusing the experimental product, such as more or less risk of infection. The idea that an employee can be punished for refusing to be the subject of an experimental test flies in the face of statutory interpretation. “

Under the federal preemption doctrine, this federal EUA law takes over state law, approved by Holland and Glaser, said states and municipalities. EUA products may not be mandated. As the FDA says:

“The FDA believes that the terms and conditions of the EUA issued under section 564 preempt state or local law, are the same ethical requirements and duties common to law, imposing different or additional medical product requirements for which the EUA is issued in the context of the emergency declared under section 564… In an emergency, it is critical that the conditions are part of the EUA or an order or waiver issued pursuant to section 564A – those determined by the FDA to be necessary or appropriate to protect public health — strictly adhered to, and with no additional conditions to be imposed. ”

This was also confirmed in August 2020 by a CDC published meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where the executive secretary of the committee, Drs. Amanda Cohn, reveals (@ 1: 14:40):

“I just want to add that, just want to remind everyone, that under an Emergency Use Act, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination stage, individuals should to allow and they will not be mandated. ”

The EUA law restricting mandates is very clear that there is only one case of trial mandating an EUA vaccine. In that case, Do # 1 v. Rumsfeld, 2005 Removed from US. LEXIS 5573 (DDC Apr. 6, 2005), the court ruled that vaccination is not mandatory, even for military personnel.

What about private owners?

Some legal experts say the law is not as clear when it comes to private landlords. the Same Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) last week updated its instruction for workplace policy for COVID vaccine orders.

the proposed by the new rules Employers may require their staff to physically enter the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID as long as they make accommodation for an employee’s disability and religious beliefs. However, the employees who cannot be vaccinated have to wear a mask, social distance or change their schedules.

Hospital leaders say healthcare institutions have not banned the regulation of vaccinations, The Washington Post reports.

“As health care workers, we have a sacred obligation to do all we can to protect our patients, who are the most vulnerable in our community,” Boom told The Washington Post. “We are proud to stand by our employees and our mission to protect our patients.”

Boom said 99% of the hospital’s 26,000 workers have complied with vaccination requirements to date and “it is unfortunate that some of the remaining employees who refuse to be vaccinated and prioritize our patients are responding in this way.”

Agreed to Holland and Glaser, a private party, such as an employer, school or hospital, cannot circumvent EUA law. For example, it fact sheet approved by the FDA for the Pfizer vaccine stated:

“It’s your choice to receive or not to receive Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. If you decide not to receive it, it will not change your usual medical care.”

the previous reference section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act management pRaCtICes Medical products approved for emergencies say the FDA-approved fact sheet must state “consequences, if any, of the refusal to handle the product.”

Nowhere on the sheet does it really mean that a person can be fired from their job, denied education, disciplined or otherwise discriminated against for refusal.

However, said attorney Richard Jaffee people have “usually zero” constitutional protections when it comes to master mandates. “Anything that has employer protections, comes from federal or state laws, especially employment laws, but also includes OSHA and possibly other agencies,” he added.

Jaffe also pointed out that if COVID vaccines were fully licensed, the EUA argument would disappear. He told The Defender:

“I don’t think any appellate court will decide the issue, because I think before it comes to the appellate court’s decision, the same vaccine has a full license. And to fill that is difficult issue, the appellate courts will dismiss the cases as moot. ”

The EEOC enforces federal employment law and publishes a statement of your rights against employers on all issues addressed to COVID, according to Jaffee. What is implicit under the EEOC’s guidelines is that a company’s mandatory COVID vaccination policy is legal under federal employment and employment law enforced by the EEOC as long as reasonable housing requirements are met for of those who have disabilities and sincerely hold religious beliefs or practices.

When asked about the options available for employees who don’t want to get the COVID vaccine, Houston Methodist said ABC News it offers “religious and medical exceptions, as well as rest for pregnant women.”

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *