W. Va. Attorney General Opines Against Vaccine Mandates, Vaccine Passport Requirements – Reason.com

And here’s more analysis; I would take a different view myself on many of these issues (I think broad vaccine mandates and vaccine passport rules would be constitutional and wouldn’t violate federal law, so long as they have suitable medical exemptions), but I thought this was interesting and likely to be important, so I’m passing it along:

A broad state-employee mandate—especially one without exceptions—would not survive strict scrutiny, if for no other reason than the mandate’s overbreadth and lack of tailoring. “Stemming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.” Yet a mandate for all employees to be vaccinated is not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Most obviously, “there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk.” Remote work, social distancing, frequent testing, altered shifts, and similar mechanisms are now familiar tools to limit spread of COVID-19; they stem the spread with less of an imposition on bodily integrity. Public information campaigns and the similar initiatives in place serve the State’s apparent interest in encouraging its employees to obtain the vaccine. At least without legitimate legislative findings describing why those other methods are insufficient, a broad mandate would likely fail constitutional review.

Also, a mandate fully embracing those who have had COVID-19—and who therefore may possess some natural immunity already—may be overbroad for the same reasons. See United States v. Arencibia (D. Minn. 2021) (noting how an individual’s prior infection with COVID-19 “provide[d] him with some natural immunity and lessen[[ed] his risk of re-infection”). Although data is still developing, research suggests that those with natural immunity may enjoy the same—or even greater— levels of protection that those who are vaccinated. See, e.g., Faye Flam, Vaccines Versus Covid-19: The Great Immunity Debate, WASH. POST (Sept. 7, 2021), available at https://wapo.st/3lcyyP6 (“People who had two Pfizer shots were about 27 times more likely to get symptomatic Covid-19 and eight times more likely to be hospitalized than were people who’d been infected.”). Insisting that persons who already enjoy a high level of protection against the disease to obtain an additional level of protection is not the least restrictive means of achieving the State’s interest in advancing public health. See, e.g., Chris Burt, George Mason Relents, Grants COVID-19 Medical Exemption to Professor, University Business (Aug. 17, 2021), available at https://bit.ly/2X8Ez7z (describing settlement of litigation brought by law professor with natural immunity against his employer).

If the State were to proceed with a mandate anyway, then the burden would fall on the State to show why the alternative mitigation measures or a more circumscribed mandate would not be as effective as a broader, universal mandate for state employees. Carrying that burden will be difficult for the State to do, especially if new variants challenge the effectiveness of vaccines, more individuals acquire long-lasting natural immunity, and state entities become used to life with limited mitigation measures in place.

In summary, a mandate that all state employees obtain a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment offends the constitutional right to bodily integrity and personal medical decision-making.

Beyond the bodily-integrity issue, a wide-ranging state-employee mandate lacking any religious exemption would offend our constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom. “Texts and decisions of appellate courts dealing with the fundamental nature of religious liberty are almost without limit.” As the U.S. Supreme Court explained long ago:

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. … [The State may] respect[] the religious nature of our people and accommodate[] the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe…. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.”

Zorach v. Clauson (1952).

Employment Division v. Smith (1990) stands apart from principles like these, and it does not adequately protect the free exercise of religion. Given the direction of the Court, however, it is conceivable, if not likely, that the Smith test will be buried soon—at least in this State. And once Smith is gone, the strict-scrutiny standard should apply in any free-exercise challenge, too. Once that happens, the tailoring problems already described would defeat the law— particularly as religious objectors would represent only a subset of state employees.

Even if the test in Smith were to survive, two other significant problems exist for a mandate in the religious sphere. For one thing, if a mandate provides for a medical exemption (as most every vaccination mandate now in place does), then that mandate should no longer be called “generally applicable.” At the same time, exempting religious objectors would not necessarily defeat the objective of reaching a high enough level of immunization to achieve herd immunity if national rates hold. See Seither R. McGill, et al., Vaccination Coverage with Selected Vaccines and Exemption Rates Among Children in Kindergarten—United States, 2019-20 School Year, 70 MMWR MORB. MORTAL. W’KLY REP. 75 (2021) (showing an average non-medical exemption rate of 2.5% from kindergarten compulsory vaccinations). For another thing, this situation appears to present a classic “hybrid rights” case. Free exercise is at stake, but so, too, is bodily integrity. We cannot say with certainty whether the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia would adopt the “hybrid rights” model that has so divided federal courts. But given that the Court has never spoken to the issue, it is at least plausible that the Court may embrace it.

Accordingly, if the State or state actor does not offer any religious exemption to a mandate that State employees be vaccinated, then such a mandate violates the West Virginia Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom.

Of course, the problems of a state-employee vaccine mandate go beyond the aforementioned analysis; additional challenges to such a mandate are likely to arise under federal and state law.

First, a mandate requiring vaccination under penalty of dismissal could be subject to a claim of disability discrimination. If an employee cannot get a COVID-19 vaccine because of a disability, and the State then dismisses him for it, then that dismissal could violate both the WVHRA and the ADA. An employer could find it hard to establish a “direct threat” on these facts given that many employees in this State have worked in the office without mandatory vaccines for several months. Even if the State can establish that a particular employee’s unvaccinated status poses a “direct threat,” then reasonable accommodations—such as the mitigation measures described above—would still seem to be available to reduce or eliminate that threat. For this reason, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) counsels that “an employer introducing a COVID-19 vaccination policy and requiring documentation or other confirmation of vaccination should notify all employees that the employer will consider requests for reasonable accommodation based on disability on an individualized basis.” EEOC, What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws § K.5 (updated May 28, 2021), available at https://bit.ly/3zQ0COB (“EEOC Guidance”).

Second, the State could unwittingly engage in religious discrimination if it requires all employees to be vaccinated without exception. An employee objecting to a vaccine based on bona fide religious grounds would be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. And any religious belief or practice would be enough to compel the employer to offer those accommodations, so long as the cost is insubstantial to the employer. The employee cannot insist on any specific form of accommodation. But where an employee raises a valid religious objection, and some reasonable accommodation is available, that accommodation must be offered.

Third, the State could face a disparate-impact discrimination claim. Given that disparities in vaccination rates among racial and ethnic populations have persisted, the State could face disparate-impact claims from members of those protected classes should a mandate be implemented. See Nambi Ndugga, Latest Data on COVID-19 Vaccinations by Race/Ethnicity, Kaiser Family Foundation (Sept. 9, 2021), available at https://bit.ly/2Vp7542 (providing data concerning disparities among vaccination rates); see also EEOC Guidance at K.1 (“[E]mployers that have a vaccine requirement may need to respond to allegations that the requirement has a disparate impact. … [B]ecause some individuals or demographic groups may face greater barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination than others, some employees may be more likely to be negatively impacted by a vaccination requirement.”).

All together, these other state and federal laws confirm that an unmitigated law mandating that all state employees be vaccinated is ill advised and unlawful.


[II.] A Blanket Law Requiring All Public or Private Establishments To Demand That Patrons Present a “Vaccine Passport” Before Entry Is Unconstitutional Under the West Virginia Constitution and Conflicts with Other State and Federal Laws….

[A] requirement that a person show a vaccine passport to enter “either public or private establishments throughout the state” is a legal step too far. Such a far-reaching requirement effectively equals banishment from society, preventing a person from participating in even the most basic activities of society. It is one thing to impair a person’s right to social association—a right that has never been viewed as fundamental. Although courts have not yet addressed the question, it is quite another matter to insist on total isolation for the unvaccinated—an outcome that would seem to inevitably result from the lack of a passport.

A state-enforced, total prohibition on entry to public and private establishments could significantly impair the exercise of many fundamental rights—the right to worship, speak, assemble, petition, vote, travel, and more. And it should make no difference that the ultimate actor could well be a private entity, as your hypothetical contemplates that the State will have compelled the private entity to demand a passport in the first place.

These substantial impairments—whether examined through the lens of due process, equal protection, or the First Amendment—would, in our view, trigger strict scrutiny. And as already detailed, a law like this would struggle to meet the narrow-tailoring aspect of the strict-scrutiny analysis, especially if other mitigation methods have been used to good effect for some time.

Further, as with the hypothetical state-employee mandate, this universal vaccine passport would struggle to fit with other state and federal anti-discrimination statutes. For instance, a private business could find itself facing an ADA or WVHRA claim if it were compelled to bar an unvaccinated person from its premises and that person was unable to obtain the vaccine because of a disability. We recognize that the Department of Justice (the agency that enforces ADA Titles II and III) has not yet issued guidance on this issue. But we can imagine many troubling scenarios. For example, giving an unvaccinated-because-of-disability patron the chance to order takeout, while denying him the chance to eat in, might deny the guest a “like experience” and thus contravene the statute. Ultimately, the business would need to show that the vaccination “passport” requirement was an essential eligibility requirement justified by a patron’s “direct threat.” That analysis would track the similar rationale described above in the employment context.

Overall, any passport requirement would, in our view, present significant additional problems under the West Virginia Constitution—as well as state and federal law.


[III.] A Private Entity’s Choice to Require Employee Vaccination or Request Showing of a Vaccine Passport Without Exceptions Already Violates Federal and State Law, But the Legislature Could—and Should—Pass Additional Laws Banning Vaccine Mandates or Vaccine Passports.

While a private entity is not, as a general matter, subject to the same constitutional duties or restrictions as public entities, imposition of a vaccine mandate without exception may still give rise to some legal liability.

The anti-discrimination laws described above, including Title II, Title VII, the ADA, and the WVHRA, would still apply to both a private vaccine mandate and a request for a passport in a private business subject to these statutes. Thus, at a minimum, even private employers need to provide exceptions for religious-and disability-based objections for their employees.

In short, state and federal law may prevent private entities from imposing a blanket employee vaccination mandate.

To the extent that, as discussed above, state law does not expressly limit private entities from imposing vaccine-related initiatives, we believe this area is one ripe for legislative action— at a minimum, to provide for express religious or health exceptions to any such mandate. As a general matter, the West Virginia Constitution would not prevent the Legislature from banning both vaccine mandates (imposed by public or private entities) and vaccine mandates (imposed by the same). Even a broad ban—such as an amendment to the WVHRA like the Montana law— would not give rise to significant constitutional concerns, although it would impact the traditional framework for analyzing current anti-discrimination laws.

While we believe that such a restriction or model could be defended, we acknowledge that a federal court in Florida has enjoined enforcement of that State’s vaccine-passport bans, reasoning that they violate the First Amendment and substantially burden interstate commerce. See Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. v. Rivkees (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2021). Among other things, the court did not believe that Florida had identified any compelling state interest that the law advanced. The court thought the law (1) did not protect medical privacy in any provable way; (2) did not stop other ways to invade a patron’s privacy, like simply asking about vaccine status orally; (3) did not prohibit private entities from discriminating against unvaccinated people; and (4) did not regulate employers. But in contrast to the view of the Florida court, West Virginia’s interest in preserving the liberty of its citizens is real. A conscientious Legislature can address these under-and over-inclusiveness issues addressed in the Florida district court’s opinions through careful drafting.

There should be no reason for hesitation in passing a ban on vaccine mandates or passport requirements or, at a minimum, requiring religious or medical exemptions in such requirements.

Source link

Are vaccine mandates legal? Calgary lawyer Derek From shares his insight

The prospect of losing one’s livelihood, a favourite pastime or activity, and most fundamentally, one’s right to medical privacy and freedom from medical coercion is daunting. Folks on a budget can’t necessarily afford to speak with a knowledgeable lawyer to figure out their options, so Rebel News stepped in and committed to crowdfunding 100 vaccine consultations for people fearing repercussions for their opposition to forced or coerced vaccinations.

We joined Calgary lawyer Derek From to discuss his work on our VaccineConsultations.com initiative. During our chat, he provided insights on the legality of vaccine mandates and shared some of the important stories that he has heard from people from many different backgrounds, who are all being pressured to receive the jab.

We also discussed the troublesome and lawless conduct of governments and employers who are enforcing vaccine passports. Most importantly, we talked about the devastating realities faced by folks who may lose everything simply because they do not wish to be injected with an experimental vaccine, whether for religious, personal or medical reasons.

In addition to helping provide advice to those unwilling to be vaccinated, this initiative helped kickstart our strategic legal battle against vaccine passports via our FightVaccinePassports.com campaign. This legal challenge is vital to putting an end to this madness once and for all. If you are able to donate, please do so. We must act before it is too late. Things may look bleak right now, but with your help, we will fight this unconstitutional attack until the very end!

Source link

Alabama House Bill Proposes Vaccine Injury Protection for Employees

If an individual was injured by an employer-mandated COVID-19 vaccine, a proposed Alabama bill will give the employee the right to take legal action against their employer.

Though House Bill 16 was drafted earlier in the year, Alabama state Rep. Tommy Hanes, a Republican sponsor of the bill, told The Epoch Times that it has garnered media attention following President Joe Biden’s Sept. 10 speech that announced new federal vaccine requirements.

Part of Biden’s requirements is mandating private companies with 100 or more employees to have staff vaccinated or tested weekly for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, commonly known as the novel coronavirus, the pathogen that causes COVID-19

After Biden’s speech, Hanes said he now plans to revise the bill or draft a new version with a clause that protects the employer as well.

If the current bill were to pass, it would put the employer in the position of consequentially violating federal law by adhering to state law.

The bill states that an employee and his or her dependents have “private right-of-action against an employer for any adverse reaction, injury, temporary or permanent disability, or death” as a result of the COVID-19 vaccine mandated by the employer.

What prompted the idea for the bill, Hanes said, was hearing a legal opinion claiming that, because Alabama is an “at-will” state, the employer can mandate vaccines for the employee. An at-will state means an employer can fire an employee at any time.

“This bill is about individual liberties,” Hanes said. “Even though we are an at-will state, that only goes so far. It doesn’t mean the employer owns you.”

The premise of a vaccine mandate, Hanes said, is based on a notion of ownership.

“It’s like my dog: if my dog could talk and say, ‘no, I don’t want the rabies vaccine,’ well, she doesn’t have anything to say about that because I own her,” Hanes said.

An employee, Hanes said, is an individual business.

“Employees sell their time and labor to that employer because they need to purchase that from them,” Hanes said. “Employees really work for themselves. Once a man or a woman gives a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage, then they have fulfilled their end of the bargain.”

On Biden’s vaccine mandate speech, Hanes referred to the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

“The federal government was created by the states, with limited power,” Hanes said. “Federal law doesn’t always supersede state law.”

He added that the Tenth Amendment and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine were established to limit federal overreach, which has been the winning argument in several cases in the U.S. Supreme Court that have overturned federal law “on numerous occasions.”

“I’m sure if this bill were to pass, the federal government would take the state of Alabama to court, but some things are just worth fighting for,” Hanes said. “Individual liberties are worth fighting for.”

Alabama is one of 27 states with Republican governors or attorney generals who have stated that they will fight Biden’s executive order.

In a statement on the mandate, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the state of Alabama will sue to block the order.

“The vaccine mandate is unprecedented in its audacity and unlawful in its application,” Marshall said. “The Biden administration knows this full and well.”




Matt McGregor covers news from North and South Carolina for The Epoch Times.

Source link

Nicki Minaj Fans Rally Against CDC and Vaccine Mandates Outside the CDC — TGP’s Alicia Powe Was There to Film the Event (VIDEO)

Nicki Minaj Fans Rally Against CDC and Vaccine Mandates Outside the CDC — TGP’s Alicia Powe Was There to Film the Event (VIDEO)

Tap here to add The Western Journal to your home screen.

Source link

Archdiocese of Toronto announces strict vaccine mandate for clergy, employees, and volunteers

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here. 

TORONTO (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Thomas Collins and the Archdiocese of Toronto issued two memos to all employees and clergy on Friday informing them of a new mandate that will require everyone to be fully vaccinated or be subject to weekly testing. 

“Beginning on October 8, 2021, we will require that all clergy (bishops, priests, deacons) be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or provide regular proof of a recent negative COVID-19 test result in order to perform their duties,” the memo reads.

“If an employee does not comply with this policy, or is found to have submitted fraudulent proof of vaccination, a fraudulent test result, a fraudulent summary, or fraudulent documentation in support of an accommodation request, they may be subject to discipline (which includes being placed on an unpaid leave of absence), up to and including termination of employment for just cause,” it continues.

The recent mandate also subjects volunteers and all lay employees to the same vaccination or testing requirements, including but not limited to parish staff, lectors, choir members, and ushers.

If a person opts for testing, the memo states that they will be forced to pay for the weekly testing out of pocket at a fee of “about $40/test.”

The memo claims that the archdiocese “will accommodate individuals who are unable to comply with this policy on the basis of a protected human rights ground to the extent required under human rights legislation.”

However, last month the Archdiocese of Toronto released another memo telling clergy they are not to sign any letters of religious exemption regarding the COVID-19 vaccines, despite its connection to abortion.

The injections, which all have connections to fetal cell lines that were sourced from aborted children, are a cause of moral apprehension for many faithful Catholics and high-ranking clergy alike.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan has gone as far as providing affidavits for any Catholics who want to oppose mandatory vaccinations on religious grounds.

Another high-ranking clergyman, Cardinal Raymond Burke, also told the faithful, “It must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses.”

Further, the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) has laid out four points, referencing authentic Church teaching, that outline how and why Catholics can reject mandatory vaccinations in good conscience:

  • Vaccination is not morally obligatory in principle and so must be voluntary.
  • There is a general moral duty to refuse the use of medical products, including certain vaccines, that are produced using human cells lines derived from direct abortions. It is permissible to use such vaccines only under certain case-specific conditions, based on a judgment of conscience.
  • A person’s informed judgments about the proportionality of medical interventions are to be respected unless they contradict authoritative Catholic moral teachings.
  • A person is morally required to obey his or her sure conscience, even if it errs.

On the legal front, constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati has repeatedly stated that mandatory vaccinations and mandatory testing are violations of Canadian law, per the Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Privacy Act, as well as the Criminal Code of Canada. 

Specifically, under the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act of the Criminal Code of Canada: 

  • 3 (1) It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to undergo a genetic test as a condition of
  • (a) providing goods or services to that individual;
  • (b) entering into or continuing a contract or agreement with that individual; or
  • (c) offering or continuing specific terms or conditions in a contract or agreement with that individual.

Refusal to undergo genetic test

  • (2) It is prohibited for any person to refuse to engage in an activity described in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual on the grounds that the individual has refused to undergo a genetic test.

Disclosure of results

  • 4 (1) It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to disclose the results of a genetic test as a condition of engaging in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c).

Refusal to disclose results

  • (2) It is prohibited for any person to refuse to engage in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual on the grounds that the individual has refused to disclose the results of a genetic test.

5 It is prohibited for any person who is engaged in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual to collect, use or disclose the results of a genetic test of the individual without the individual’s written consent.

In an attached letter to the memo, written by Collins, he tells the people under his purview, “We must get beyond this pandemic, which has directly and indirectly caused such misery for so many, and has impeded our life as a Christian community. The single best way to do that is for people to get vaccinated.”

A long-standing employee of the archdiocese, who wishes to remain anonymous at this time, offered a comment to LifeSite about the coercive directive announced today.

“[I’m] not at all surprised. I could see this coming. They [the Archdiocese] are beholden to the government,” she said.

“Where will this end? The fear is, eventually, churches will only be open to the vaccinated,” she added.

The employee also told LifeSite that she has received multiple calls from faithful Catholics over the past month expressing a feeling of betrayal from the Archdiocese, per their policy to deny the faithful religious exemptions.

“The only thing that is keeping me going is the love of the Eucharist, and knowing God wins,” the employee concluded.

LifeSite has reached out to the Archdiocese of Toronto for a comment but has yet to receive a reply.

Source link

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona says he supports COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students

Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on Thursday expressed support for COVID-19 vaccination requirements for eligible students, saying that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s full approval of shots for some young people should open the door for state officials to institute plans to start vaccinations, according to Politico.

“Not only do I support it, but I’m encouraging states to come up with a plan to make sure it happens,” Cardona told the outlet. “I would like governors who hold those decisions to make those decisions now that [vaccines] are FDA-approved.”

“There’s a reason why we’re not talking about measles today,” he said, according to Politico. “It was a required vaccination, and we put it behind us. So I do believe at this point we need to be moving forward.”

The Washington Post reported that Cardona said Thursday that he backs mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for older teenagers. Here’s more from the Post:

“I wholeheartedly support it,” he said. “It’s the best tool that we have to safely reopen schools and keep them open. We don’t want to have the yo-yo effect that many districts had last year, and we can prevent that by getting vaccinated.”

Cardona said that in general, he believes governors, not school superintendents, should implement the mandates. “I really want to make sure that governors and health officials are driving the communication around public health measures, which vaccinations are,” he said.

Cardona had been hesitant to vigorously promote vaccination, but he said that changed after the FDA gave full approval of a coronavirus vaccine for those ages 16 and up. Those ages 12-15 are eligible for shots under an emergency authorization.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been approved by the FDA for people 16 and older and remains available for teens 12 to 15 years old under an emergency use authorization.

“Governors should work with their school officials and with their health officials to roll out requirements, especially in areas that are high-spread, and where students might be at risk for going back to remote learning, or hybrid learning, as a result of the spread of COVID-19,” he said, according to Politico.

“This is about safely reopening schools,” he said. “And what we know, based on not only on the COVID-19 vaccine, but the other vaccines that are already mandatory for school enrollment, is that they work. Our students have been disrupted enough, and sometimes you have to be crystal clear on what you believe.”

Source link

The Dangerous COVID Vaccine Trick Played On Everyone

This is horrible and yet it should give hope to people who are already vaccinated. This is a must see video all the way through. DISCLAIMER: Views and opinions expressed on The Ben Armstrong Show are solely those of the host and do not necessarily represent those of The New American. TNA is not responsible …

The post The Dangerous COVID Vaccine Trick Played On Everyone appeared first on The New American.

Source link

Major Italian media personality calls out vaccine passports, Great Reset, Pope Francis

(LifeSiteNews) — Carlo Freccero is a tour de force in Italian media circles. On both national television and in print, he referred to the goals of what is known as the Great Reset, stating that Pope Francis himself is “a man of the reset.”

Freccero is a journalist, author, television critic, director and former executive. For years he worked for state broadcaster Rai in various roles of an executive and directorial nature. He headed up the national television channel Rai 2 between 1996 and 2002, and again from 2018 until 2019. He has been involved in Italian politics and has worked as a professor.

Freccero has signed on to an Italian movement calling for a referendum on the proposed “Green Pass” legislation. Starting October 15, all Italian employees — private and public — will be forced to partake in the Green Pass framework in order to work. If they fail to comply, they could be suspended or lose their employment. Workers in Italy will have to show proof of vaccination, a negative test, or proof they have recovered from the virus.

The Green Pass is currently used for travel purposes in Italy, and was put in with the intent of allowing foreign travelers to support Italy’s massively important tourism sector. Currently, workers in health care and education already must show their Green Pass in order to work.

Carlo Freccero believes this is overreach on behalf of the government. In Italy, if 500,000 signatures are obtained, a referendum on a given issue must be held. Freccero and the others who have signed on to the petition to force a referendum believe that Italians are having their constitutional rights violated by the maneuvering from the Draghi government.

The website hosting the signature campaign states: “The Green Pass, in fact, excludes from the economic and social life of the nation those citizens who hold beliefs and evidence other than those imposed by the Government. For this reason, the legislation establishing the Green Pass is in stark contrast to Article 3 of the Constitution, according to which ‘All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, personal and social conditions. It is the task of the Republic to remove economic and social obstacles which, by limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, prevent the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic and social organization of the country.’”

Since publicly voicing his support for liberty in Italy, Freccero published an open letter in the newspaper La Stampa which garnered national attention. In the letter, he spoke directly of the Great Reset, and it his opinion that the Green Pass is a method of corralling citizens into discriminatory groups that set the stage for the eventual reset. He wrote: “My role is that of a communication expert and, as such, I could not help but notice the massive propaganda and disinformation campaign conducted by the mainstream media with a unanimity that is unprecedented in the history of the country.”

He believes Italian media are complicit in the plan to impose the goals of the Great Reset, which he described in a television interview as being consistent with the Chinese Communist system.

— Article continues below Petition —

11381 have signed the petition.

Let’s get to 12500!

Thank you for signing this petition!

Add your signature:

  Show Petition Text

It’s official: Joe Biden has announced that his Administration will be forcing COVID vaccinations on nearly 1/3rd of American citizens, blatantly disregarding the personal objections of millions of people and moving America ever closer towards a medical dictatorship.

We cannot stand for this unprecedented overreach, and we will not submit to Biden’s tyrannical public coercion efforts.

Please SIGN this urgent petition informing the President that you will NOT comply with these unconstitutional vaccine mandate orders issued by the Biden Administration, and that elected officials should act in their capacity to block these intrusive demands.

On Thursday, September 9th, Joe Biden announced the latest round of federal orders meant to further coerce large swaths of the public into getting the COVID vaccine — many against their will.

While the legal standing of these measures is, at best, dubious, the Biden Administration appears more ready than ever to gut our individual rights and practically erase medical autonomy in our country.

This latest escalation in overreach was announced via a televised speech in which Biden outlined a new “six-point plan” that includes far more than just six avenues to achieve mass medical compliance.

Among the most egregious new federal mandates are the following:

  • A requirement that all private businesses employing more than 100 people mandate their workers get the Covid-19 vaccine or submit to weekly testing (to be implemented by way of a new Department of Labor rule)
  • A requirement that all federal employees and federal contractors get the COVID vaccine
  • A requirement that all healthcare workers in facilities that receive reimbursement from Medicare and/or Medicaid (an estimated 17 million) get the Covid-19 vaccine without an alternative testing option
  • A requirement that all Head Start teachers get the COVID vaccine
  • A federal effort to lobby states to implement vaccine mandates for all school employees, and require regular testing of all students and school staff
  • A federal effort to lobby entertainment venues to require proof of vaccination or testing in order to grant entry to the public
  • A continuation of mask mandates on all federal properties and during interstate travel (i.e. planes, trains, buses)

All in all, these new vaccine mandates, which will go into effect within the coming weeks, will affect an estimated 100 million American workers — 2/3rds of the entire workforce!

And, according to an administration official, violations of these unconstitutional requirements could result in fines of up to $14,000.

While this is clearly a political ploy on the part of the Joe Biden and his team of power-hungry Washington insiders to shift the focus from their disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the American public knows better: After nearly a year and a half’s worth of arbitrary, ever-changing, and unconstitutional government mandates in response to the COVID outbreak, it was always a given that the Biden Administration would ramp things up even further when it behooved them.

And now, it would seem that time has officially come.

“This is not about freedom or personal choice,” Biden uttered in his remarks, confirming his administration’s blatant dismissal of all Americans’ right(s) to accept or decline the experimental Covid-19 vaccine.

This is a stunning reversal from Biden’s declaration last December that “I don’t think [the vaccine] should be mandatory, I wouldn’t demand it to be mandatory.”

In fact, Biden even confirmed his intention to flout states’ rights in the process, warning that “If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.”

These are not the words of an “empathetic” leader; these are the words of an aspiring dictator. And, for the time being, the only way to stop Joe Biden’s tyranny is through mass noncompliance.

As we’ve said from the beginning, science, basic logic, and common sense should dictate policy regarding COVID and the Delta variant.

But Joe Biden and the federal government have long abandoned those principles throughout this crisis, culminating into this disturbing yet inevitable flurry of intrusive vaccine mandates that use people’s jobs, individual autonomy, and livelihood as leverage.

This assault on our individual rights, private businesses, and American workers cannot be tolerated, and the easiest way to combat these unlawful orders is to just say NO.

Please SIGN and SHARE this most important petition letting Joe Biden know that you will NOT comply with the unconstitutional medical demands being made by this administration, and that action should be taken to block any intrusive action against working Americans and private employers.

Thank you!


‘Biden announces vaccine requirements for private businesses, impacting tens of millions of Americans’: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-biden-announces-vaccine-requirements-for-private-businesses-impacting-tens-of-millions-of-workers/

During the interview, which took place in prime time on major Italian network Mediaset, Freccero explained the outline of the Great Reset.

He acknowledged that people might want to brush off talk of a reset as being a “conspiracy theory,” but insisted that the information was public by holding up a series of books written about the Great Reset by men like Klaus Schwab. The hostess agreed that it was not a clandestine conspiracy, and she herself held up pages of text pointing to the research she had read on the matter in order to prepare for the interview.

Freccero explained that the goal of the Great Reset is a future governed by “an elite … not by a political party but by an elite, a financial elite, a technocratic elite … after the American fashion of big tech and big pharma.” He added that the elite are creating a world “that we already find in the Orient, that is China.”

Palombelli agreed with Freccero and said “this is a project, this is very clear,” which means to say that she distinguished it from a secret conspiracy for which there is no evidence. She asked Freccero if Italy was destined for the same plight as China, and if there was anyone who could contradict the desires of the Great Reset advocates in Italy. He responded that there are “two worlds,” one of “reasonable and rational” people and another of people who accept government propaganda and participate in group-think. He stressed that the two worlds need to speak with one another somehow, and that the referendum on the Green Pass was a method by which Italians could come together and discuss the pertinent issues of degrading Italian rights and freedoms.

In the interview, Freccero also brought up Event 201, which simulated a fictional pandemic and took place only a few months prior to the real coronavirus pandemic. He believes this is evidence that the elite are using the pandemic as an excuse to implement globalist and elitist initiatives that they already planned for.

Freccero was also interviewed by Italian publication Il Foglio. In the interview he told journalist Salvatore Merlo, “I am not a conspirator. It is they who are plotting. I read and quote documents. I find out that the elite want to impose new forms of control on people, to turn the West into China through health policy. And then because I tell this conspiracy, trying to document it, I automatically become a conspirator. It’s an undue logical step.”

In the same interview he said that he believes Pope Francis is in league with the elites of Davos who want to impose the Great Reset. He said: “Not Benedict XVI but Bergoglio. He accepts this system, this contemporaneity. Everything is consequential. Everything holds together. It is clear.”

At the end of the television interview, a contributor relayed information that Italian Prime Minster Mario Draghi spoke to the U.N. and expressed his desire that the world implement a joint Economic and Health Board that would work to respond to and prevent pandemics on a global scale.

Freccero and the hostess chuckled, and Freccero said: “Thank you Draghi, thank you. You see how they are moving forward with a world government?” Acknowledging that critics would say he sounded unhinged, he said: I am playing with my reputation … but I thank you for the invite, because the same Draghi, did nothing other than prove what I said.”

Source link

BLM New York co-founder on her opposition to vaccine passports and mandates

Black Lives Matter is defending a group of individuals accused of dining indoors without proper vaccine passports, as reported by National Review. Recently at a restaurant called Carmine’s in New York City, a group of women from Texas (a state where there is no vaccine passport) went into the establishment to be later joined by three male friends.

When the men attempted to enter, two were prevented from doing so for allegedly failing to match their identification with their vaccination documents.

After a violent altercation, staff at the restaurant were alleged to have then accused the female customers of having fraudulent vaccination cards as well, apparently making a racial slur in the process.

Now, the three female customers are under investigation for criminal mischief and assault.

In response, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Greater New York, Chivona Newsome said the following:

Having a vaccination card does not protect you from discrimination. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits the actions of Carmine’s. It says it is illegal to discriminate against you on the basis of race.

Newsome joined me to talk about vaccine passport and discrimination.

Source link

Catholic radio program dropped from Florida station for anti-COVID vaccine stance 

STUART, Florida (LifeSiteNews) — A Catholic radio program “without compromise” has been dropped from a Florida radio station for speaking out against COVID-19 shots. 

Virgin Most Powerful Radio was informed on September 15 by Ron Crider that their programming would be “immediately” discontinued on Prince of Peace Radio, WJPP/WPBV, based in Stuart, Florida, because of their “inconsistent” views on the morality of the COVID-19 jabs. 

It is our understanding the church supports vaccinations,” Crider wrote in an email announcing his decision.

“The Pope has been vaccinated and the council of Bishops support vaccination. And yes we are 100% Pro Life and totally are against abortion!” 

Crider continued: “Your program is inconsistent with our station with respect to the ‘vaccination issue’.”

“Otherwise we very much like your daily program.” 

Terry Barber, the founder of several major Catholic media apostolates, including St. Joseph Communications, Lighthouse Catholic Media, and the Catholic Resource Center, formed the Virgin Most Powerful radio network after The Terry and Jesse Show, which he hosts together with Jesse Romero, was dropped from Relevant Radio, formerly known as Immaculate Heart Radio.  

Barber and Romero had been speaking out on moral and health issues of the COVID-19 jabs for months on The Terry and Jesse Show. Just prior to being dropped, on September 13, they had hosted a radio show entitled “Profile in Cowardice: How Catholic Leaders Botched Abortion-Linked COVID Vaccines.” 

— Article continues below Petition —

98 have signed the petition.

Let’s get to 1000!

Thank you for signing this petition!

Add your signature:

  Show Petition Text

United Airlines is accused of not respecting the religious and medical COVID vaccine exemptions which the company offered to employees who cannot, in good conscience or health, take the vaccine.

2,000 employees of the industry giant are represented in two court cases which have been initiated to stop United from laying-off or indefinitely furloughing workers who have sought COVID vaccine exemptions.

Please SIGN this BOYCOTT of United and send the airline a stong message that you will not support the implementation of these draconian measures.

Many United Airlines employees have sincerely held religious objections to taking the COVID vaccines, while other employees have been told by their doctors not to take the vaccine due to health concerns.

The religious and medical rights of these employees must be respected, and, will hopefully be vindicated by the courts.

But, airlines are for-profit businesses, and apart from the legal incentives, there must also be financial incentives for them to respect their employees’ religious and medical rights, and, indeed, the same rights of all Americans.

And, that’s why we are calling for a boycott.

The CEO of United Airlines, Scott Kirby, and HR Manager, Kate Gebo, need to understand that the American public will not support businesses who force their employees or customers to violate their religious beliefs or their doctors’ recommendations.

Of course, this is totally unnecessary.

United could simply make reasonable accommodations for their employees who are claiming either a religious or medical exemption.

But, until United adopts that policy, we are asking you to consider boycotting the “unfriendly skies” and find another airline for your travel needs. By doing so, you will meaningfully stand shoulder-to-shoulder with these aggrieved United employees.

Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this petition to boycott United Airlines over the company’s failure to respect religious and medical COVID vaccine exemptions for its employees.


‘Pilots seek restraining order against United Airlines’ ‘unlawful, life-threatening, vaccine-mandate’’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pilots-seek-restraining-order-against-united-airlines-unlawful-life-threatening-vaccine-mandate/

‘United Airlines will put employees with religious, medical COVID vaccine exemptions on unpaid leave’ – https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/739949/

**Photo Credit: EQRoy / Shutterstock.com

Barber’s wife, Mary, who co-hosts another radio show with him, “Bible with the Barbers,” responded by email to Crider’s notice, advising him to look up the article “The Morality of Receiving Abortion-Derived Vaccines” by Fr. Leon Pereira, O.P., a biologist, medical doctor, and moral theologian.  

Mary Barber highlighted several of Pereira’s key points, saying first that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 “vaccines” had a connection to aborted fetal tissue in stages one and three of development of the shot for its design and testing. 

“In addition to that, he traces the fetal cell lines that were used and makes them personal,” she continued, alluding Pereira’s efforts to identify the babies from which the currently used fetal cell lines originated.

“We are dealing with a medical research method that uses the killing of human beings to develop/design, test or produce pharmaceuticals.”  

Mary Barber  then pointed to the document Dignitas Personae (2008), issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which states that only “morally proportionate” “grave reasons” may justify the use of such normally illicit biological material, such as danger to the health of children. And even then, as Barber noted, “pressure must be put on governments, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, etc., to find an ethically acceptable alternative!”  

In a follow-up response to Crider, Mary Barber quoted from the recent CDF “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines,” which stated, “Practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.” 

She also noted that “It is only permitted to use the vaccine when there is no other means to stop or prevent the epidemic.”  

“Thousands of doctors have testified to treating patients successfully, even patients with comorbidities, without hospitalization or vaccines,” said Mary Barber, adding that The Church is not infallible in matters of medicine/science.” 

In light of Dignitas Personae’s admonition that vaccines developed from aborted fetal tissue are permissible only when the “danger” is real, Mary Barber wrote, “Why is a vaccine necessary for a virus that 99.5% of the people infected recover from? 

Crider’s only response to Mary Barber, in answer to her question about which two vaccines are considered “acceptable to the Catholic Church,” was the text of an article entitled, “Catholic Church encourages people to get Pfizer or Moderna vaccine over Johnson and Johnson.” 

However, Crider gave LifeSiteNews a fuller explanation of the reasons behind his decision. 

“Americans are prolonging the pandemic by not getting vaccinated. I think this is selfish on their part,” he told LifeSiteNews by email.  

“However, the unvaccinated ‘are the greater majority’ of people dying.  Their stubbornness is creating a huge problem for this country,” Crider continued. 

“Stop with the religious excuse. The Popes are vaccinated. Stop with the-side effects excuse. Do you want to drag this out 5 years to see what they are[?] Where is your ‘FAITH’?” 

Crider revealed that his “entire family,” including his children and grandchildren, are vaccinated, and that they are “proud to wear a vaccination bracelet.” He further defended his position by saying that “the majority of the Catholic Church is pro-vaccination.” 

“It is my personal opinion your position makes you part of the problem and not part of the solution,” he declared.  

Many people have made reasonable decision not to take the COVID-19 jabs because of the thousands of deaths and millions of other serious injuries that have been recorded following their use.  

One of the testimonies Mary Barber had shared with Crider was from a nurse who refuses the COVID-19 jab and was made to choose between keeping their job and getting the shot. 

It’s easier to paint us as uncaring, uneducated conspiracy theorists than acknowledge that we are humans just like you, with families, beliefs, doing what we feel in our hearts to be best,” the nurse wrote. 

She emphasized that her entire career was dedicated to putting the needs of her patients before her own, sacrificing time with her own family to serve others.

“I’ve patiently spoon-fed ice cream and one pill at a time for an hour to your confused grandpa, answered hundreds of questions, reassured till I’m blue in the face, rushed in to make sure he didn’t fall,” the nurse said.  

“We forgo bathroom breaks, go 12+ hours without eating, lay down food we’ve reheated 4 times when a call bell rings, even if all that’s needed is moving a drink cup 3 inches to the right,” she continued. 

“But what is a choice if one option leaves every fiber in your being screaming NO and the other steals your livelihood, your passion, and the career you’ve given your heart to for the past 7 years? I don’t call that a choice.”  

The Catholic hierarchy is not wholly united on the morality of the currently available COVID-19 shots. Several bishops and archbishops, including Bishop Joseph Strickland and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, signed a statement on December 12, 2020, declaring their moral opposition to the currently available abortion-tainted COVID-19 “vaccines.” 

“The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it,” the prelates’ statement reads. 

“One who uses these vaccines must realize that his body is benefitting from the ‘fruits’ (although steps removed through a series of chemical processes) of one of mankind’s greatest crimes.” 

“God knows these souls by name,” Bishop Athanasius Schneider told John-Henry Westen, referring to the babies used to develop the current COVID-19 shots. 

All of the shows hosted by Virgin Most Powerful Radio, and their accompanying recordings, can be found on their website. Recordings from The Terry and Jesse Show can be found here. 

Source link