Tag: supreme-court

Watch a previous report on the lawsuit against Ohio State University in the video player above.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) The Ohio Supreme Court has punted a decision about Ohio universities liability for COVID-19 policies down to an appellate court.

In a 4-3 decision released Wednesday, the high court ruled that government immunity from lawsuits related to basic policy decisions is not something Ohio State University had to raise as a defense when sued about its decision to close campus in March 2020. But the court stopped short of tossing out the complaint altogether; instead, an appeals court must now decide whether something called discretionary function immunity applies in this case.

Ohio State asked the states top court to determine whether it can be sued for not partially refunding tuition and other fees when it closed most university operations and moved classes online in March 2020. The plaintiff, May 2020 graduate Brooke Smith, argued in a class action lawsuit that part of the contract students sign with universities includes access to campus and in-person instruction and that failing to reimburse students for what Smith claims is a lower educational value amounts to a breach of contract.

The university, meanwhile, argued that it was automatically protected from such a lawsuit, citing government immunity from complaints that target policies made with a high degree of official judgment or discretion. Ohio State closed campus at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to protect the health of students, faculty and staff, its attorney argued in oral arguments last fall.

Smiths attorneys contended that if Ohio State wanted to claim discretionary function immunity, it needed to do so before the Court of Claims ruled the lawsuit could proceed as a class action complaint. But the Ohio Supreme Courts conservative justices disagreed, ruling that such immunity was an automatic bar, not a defense that Ohio State needed to raise.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, emphasized that it was not determining whether Ohio States decision to not refund students when it closed campus facilities amounted to a policy decision protected under state immunity. The appeals court must decide that, Kennedy said.

When a suit challenges the manner in which the state implements one of its discretionary decisions, the Court of Claims will not be barred from hearing the case, Kennedy wrote.

Justice Jennifer Brunner, joined by her fellow Democrats on the bench, wrote in a dissent that discretionary function immunity should not be a jurisdictional bar, but rather something the university needed to raise. Ohio States raising of the argument was neither timely argued nor proved in trial court, she wrote, meaning the university was too little, too late.

Brunner also argued that the Court of Claims is empowered to determine, on its own, if it is allowed to hear a case, meaning the case should return to that court for determination. The law creating the Court of Claims granted it powers to determine immunity, she said. Allowing state actors to raise the immunity question could result in significant court delays, she added.

I do not want the majoritys decision today to create confusion and render the statute inoperable or to in effect cause nearly every action that is brought in the Court of Claims to be subject to dismissal at the moment the state raises the defense of discretionary immunity, Brunner wrote.

Other Ohio colleges, including Toledo and Bowling Green, face similar lawsuits regarding COVID-19 closures, vaccine requirements and mask mandates.

Read the full opinion below.

Read the rest here:

Appeals court to decide whether Ohio State can be sued for COVID-19 policies, campus closure - NBC4 WCMH-TV

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) A federal appeals court shot down claims Monday that New Jersey residents refusal to wear face masks at school board meetings during the COVID-19 outbreak constituted protected speech under the First Amendment.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in two related cases stemming from lawsuits against officials in Freehold and Cranford, New Jersey.

The suits revolved around claims that the plaintiffs were retaliated against by school boards because they refused to wear masks during public meetings. In one of the suits, the court sent the case back to a lower court for consideration. In the other, it said the plaintiff failed to show she was retaliated against.

Still, the court found that refusing to wear a mask during a public health emergency didnt amount to free speech protected by the Constitution.

A question shadowing suits such as these is whether there is a First Amendment right to refuse to wear a protective mask as required by valid health and safety orders put in place during a recognized public health emergency. Like all courts to address this issue, we conclude there is not, the court said.

The court added: Skeptics are free to and did voice their opposition through multiple means, but disobeying a masking requirement is not one of them. One could not, for example, refuse to pay taxes to express the belief that taxes are theft. Nor could one refuse to wear a motorcycle helmet as a symbolic protest against a state law requiring them.

Ronald Berutti, an attorney for the appellants, said they intend to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

The lawsuits were filed by George Falcone and Gwyneth Murray-Nolan.

Falcone attended a Freehold Township school board meeting in early 2022 when masks were still required. He refused, according to the courts ruling, and was issued a summons on a trespassing charge. He also alleged a later school board meeting was canceled in retaliation for his not wearing a mask. A lower court found he didnt have standing to bring the suit, and he appealed.

Murray-Nolan, who had testified before lawmakers on her skepticism toward the efficacy of masking, attended an early 2022 Cranford school board meeting without a mask despite a requirement for them. Less than a month later at the boards next meeting, she was arrested on a defiant trespass charge after attending without a mask. A lower court found officers had probable cause to arrest her because she failed to wear a mask as required under the law at the time. She appealed.

Eric Harrison, an attorney for the officials named in the suit, lauded the ruling on Tuesday. In an emailed statement he said that refusing to wear a mask in violation of a public health mandate is not the sort of civil disobedience that the drafters of the First Amendment had in mind as protected speech.

New Jerseys statewide order for public masking in schools ended in March 2022, shortly after the incidents described in the suits.

See original here:

Not wearing a mask during COVID-19 health emergency isn't a free speech right, appeals court says - The Associated Press

Vaccines save lives, prevent disease and reduce stress on the nations health care system. Because of this, the government has a compelling interest in combatting vaccine misinformation to prevent factually incorrect statements from costing lives.

That is the argument put forth in an amicus brief (PDF) filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Murthy v. Missouri by the AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Physicians and American Geriatrics Society.

The brief notes that these organizations represent hundreds of thousands of medical professionals who have witnessed both the lifesaving promise of vaccination in clinical settings and the ability of misinformation to destroy that promise.

Additionally, based on decades of research and professional experience, these organizations believe that vaccines are among the most important public health interventions, and that widespread vaccine uptake has substantial public health benefits that cannot be achieved by any other means.

Meanwhile, the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana filed suit after individuals contended social media companies were coerced into censoring them after they posted content criticizing COVID-19 policies and mask and vaccine mandates.

The Biden administration, however, contends that its communication with social media companies was an attempt to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation by highlighting content that violated the companies own policies, according to SCOTUS Blog.

Find out about the cases in which theAMA Litigation Center is providing assistanceand learn about theLitigation Centers case-selection criteria.

Focused argument

The brief focuses on how disinformation diminished uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, which then limited the vaccines ability to save lives by controlling the spread of diseasethereby creating a compelling interest for the government to act.

Combatting vaccine misinformation is, at its simplest, the government trying to prevent factually incorrect statements from costing people their lives, the brief says.

Its argument on this point notes that vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are safe and that vaccinations save lives, reduce the prevalence of deadly diseases and lower the burden on the health care system.

It also argues that misinformation about vaccines led to declining immunization uptake, which meaningfully interferes with their lifesaving role in a well-functioning public health system, and that combatting vaccine misinformation diverts time and resources from clinical care.

The brief cites studies that found COVID-19 vaccinations prevented an estimated 235,000 COVID-associated deaths in the U.S. among vaccinated adults between Dec. 1, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2021, and reduced mortality by as much as 40% among hospitalized patients.

It also notes that greater strain on medical resources leads to worse health outcomes, and argues that vaccinations indirectly produced better health outcomes for patients with ailments unrelated to COVID-19 because an increased strain on hospitals and health professionals was avoided.

Incredulous claims go viral

Vaccine safety is subject to FDA scrutiny, which only grants its approval after scientists conduct extensive clinical trials. After vaccines are approved, government agencies continue to monitor their safety, the brief says.

In contrast, disinformation claims that people became magnetized after vaccination or that vaccinated individuals were implanted with a tracking microchip or became infertile were widely circulated without any proof of their validity.

None of these assertions are supported by credible evidence, the brief says, adding that some of these very claims were the subject of communications at issue in this case.

The declining vaccination uptake spurred by disinformation has also resulted in a resurgence of diseasessuch as measlesthat previously verged on eradication, the brief says.

A July 2023 district court ruling to limit administration communication with social media companies was upheld in part by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In October, the Supreme Court froze the original district court order as modified by the appellate court until it could rule on the case itself, which could happen in June, according to SCOTUS Blog.

In another vaccine-related case, theLitigation Center of the American Medical Association and State Medical Societiesfiled an amicus brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals urging it to uphold a permanent injunction preventing Montana officials from enforcing a 2021 law barring physicians from knowing the vaccination status of employees or patients who refuse to answer questions about it.

See original here:

Why feds had compelling interest to act on vaccine disinformation - American Medical Association

E. LANSING, MI -- The Gym 24/7 Fitness in Alma closed in March of 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic swept through Michigan.

Despite an executive order from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer that required gyms, fitness centers and many other public-facing businesses to close, The Gym reopened in early May.

We have the ability to open up, so were going to open up, owner Randy Clark said in a video posted to Facebook.

Alma police were there before the morning was out, telling them they would need to close. The Gyms owners filed a lawsuit, setting up a GoFundMe request titled Help Us Fight Government Tyranny.

The Gyms case was one of two heard Wednesday by the Michigan Supreme Court concerning whether businesses forced to close or restrict operations in the first months of the pandemic deserved to be compensated.

We have said over and over at every stage of this litigation that the government can take, said Philip Ellison, an attorney representing The Gym, but if theyre going to take, they have to pay.

The second case was filed by Mount Clemens Recreational Bowl, Inc., KMI Inc. and Mirage Catering, Inc., which operate bars, restaurants and catering businesses in Macomb County.

The court wont decide whether the state is liable for damages, but whether the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to present evidence of their losses and scrutinize the states rationales for the shut down.

The Court of Claims found that The Gyms case could go forward, but the state Court of Appeals overturned that decision, finding that there is no allegation or evidence that the Gym suffered a total loss or the complete elimination or obliteration of value because of the executive orders, that the relatively short duration of the closures pushed against a ruling that they had been an unjust taking of The Gyms property and that the governments interest in preventing the spread of COVID was a compelling one.

The appellate court also noted that to the best of our knowledge, every federal court and state appellate court that has addressed a takings claim stemming from the governments closure of a business as a safeguard against the spread of COVID-19 has rejected the claim.

The case of the Macomb County businesses was summarily dismissed on the basis of the decision in The Gym case.

Arguing in front of the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, Michigan Solicitor General Ann Sherman emphasized the powers granted to the state in a situation like the COVID pandemic.

When the state acts out of necessity to protect against a grave threat to public health, its not a taking, and it removes these inquiries from the takings analysis, she said. Its not surprising that nearly every court nationwide has rejected the novel theory of taking in the context of COVID-19. Michigans departure from this wisdom would make it a national outlier.

But Justice David Viviano pressed Sherman on why the governments determination that the closures were necessary shouldnt be subject to review by a court.

What if the government said it was an emergency, but it wasnt? he asked. Or maybe it was initially but then it stopped but then the regulations continued for years and years and years? Does the government just get to show up and say it was an emergency, and therefore youre out of luck?

Justin Majewski, an attorney representing the three Macomb County businesses, argued that, under federal law, the determination of what constitutes an unjust taking relies heavily on the specific facts of a case and the specific burdens placed on a private property rights.

Rejecting his clients case based on the ruling in The Gyms lawsuit goes against that, he said.

But Sherman reiterated the argument that there is no right for a business to continue operating when the state has acted and exercised its police power in a grave emergency,

No amount of discovery would change that conclusion as a matter of law, she said.

The Court will rule on both cases prior to the end of its term on July 31.

Read more at MLive:

Michigan Supreme Court decision could raise the minimum wage to $13, require paid time off

Former Beaumont CEO John Fox received $10 million exit package after Spectrum merger

Why a Michigan company of Native soldiers fought for a country that denied them citizenship

Read the original here:

Should Michigan have to repay businesses forced to close during the COVID-19 pandemic? - MLive.com

The US Supreme Court tossed competing appellate rulings on an executive order President Joe Biden has since revoked that required all federal employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19.

In orders Monday, the justices vacated decisions from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth, Sixth and DC Circuits on whether federal employees can challenge the vaccine requirement in district court under the Civil Service Reform Act.

The law set administrative procedures that employees must follow when challenging an adverse employment action, like a firing or suspension, and gave the Federal Circuit exclusive authority to hear appeals.

All the rulings came before Biden revoked the mandate in May.

The justices undid the rulings under the so-called Munsingwear doctrine, in which the court vacates adverse rulings that the losing party no longer has the ability to challenge.

The doctrine frequently comes into play when federal policies are likely to be changed under a new administration.

The cases are Payne v. Biden, U.S., No. 22-1225, Biden v. Feds for Medical Freedom, U.S., No. 23-60, and Kendall v. Doster, U.S., No. 23-154.

Read the original:

Supreme Court Wipes Away Conflicting Rulings on Covid Vaccines - Bloomberg Law

A vaccine protest in 2021. Credit: Anthony Crider via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 2.0.

Vaccines, one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, proved their worth, yet again, in response to one of the greatest infectious disease threats of all time: COVID-19. Approximately 70 percent of Americans completed the original primary series of COVID vaccines, helping to restart the global economy and allow people to escape social isolation. These vaccines prevented an estimated 3.2 million deaths nationally between December 2020 and November 2022. Millions more were spared the risks of extensive hospital stays, extended illness from long-COVID, and other substantial harms. Earlier this year, researchers contributing to the science underlying the vaccines were awarded a Nobel Prize.

Despite this positive track record, significant skepticism remains about COVID and other vaccines. Scores of Americans refused to get vaccinated during the pandemic despite strong incentives and clear dangers to their and their families health, a trend that has intensified in recent years. Just 17 percent of Americans received the critical omicron booster shot offered in late 2022. Considerably fewer (7.1 percent of adults and 2.1 percent of children as of October 14) have sought the updated COVID vaccines that became available this fall. One of the most contentious pandemic-era debatesfueled by apathy, safety concerns, misinformation, and government distrustinvolves the use of vaccine mandates by governments, schools, and employers to boost COVID vaccination rates.

Although the United States has a long-standing and legally supported history of vaccination requirements in certain contexts, the COVID pandemic witnessed scores of lawsuits challenging them, as political and media figures vilified vaccination and other public health measures. These lawsuits touched on constitutional issues and statutory concerns, with plaintiffs seeking exemptions or an end to mandate enforcement altogether. And while several states have moved to further restrict or eliminate vaccine mandates, the Supreme Court has opened the door to increased challenges under the Civil Rights Act, which may heighten exemptions that could undermine the efficacy of vaccine efforts. COVIDs tidal wave of lawsuits, state legislation, and vaccine skepticism evince an environment where vaccines are truly on trial.

COVID-19 vaccine incentives and mandates. With the issuance of multiple emergency use authorizations by the Food and Drug Administration beginning in December 2020, initial COVID vaccines were allocated first to at-risk health care workers and then to others over several priority stages. By February 2021, Americans were waiting in long lines at stadiums and other centralized sites across many US cities, vying for access to free COVID vaccines. The initial push for access to the shots quickly waned. Even as available supplies rose, the numbers of Americans actively seeking vaccinations plummeted by spring, before most communities reached anything close to herd immunity.

In response, the public and private sectors pivoted rapidly to reverse growing public apathy and resistance to vaccinations. Raffles, lotteries, gift cards, college scholarships, travel vouchers, and even free beer, doughnuts, and marijuana were offered to entice individuals across states and localities to get vaccinated. So long as they are equitably distributed, such incentives are lawful and can work. A 2023 systematic review confirmed that financial rewards positively impacted personal decisions to get vaccinated.

Yet, incentives alone were not enough to sufficiently raise vaccination rates. Governments and private employers turned increasingly in 2021 to mandates (coupled with optional test requirements) to garner compliance among employees, students, health care workers, and others. For over a century, states and localities have authorized vaccine mandates as a condition of participation in work, school, or other activities. The Supreme Court has largely approved non-forcible vaccine requirements since 1905. These measures have proven effective, especially during disease outbreaks or pandemics.

During the COVID pandemic, states and localities set numerous COVID vaccine requirements. Hundreds of colleges and universities mandated vaccination for on-campus faculty and students during the 2021-2022 academic year. Secondary and elementary school teachers and students in multiple jurisdictions were inoculated or regularly tested. Higher-profile mandates arose as well. By September 2021, President Joe Biden announced a series of measures requiring COVID vaccination for federal employees/contractors, military service personnel, health care providers, large company employees, and select federally funded educators.

Judicial challenges. Through extensive lawsuits challenging these and other COVID vaccine mandates, litigants alleged violations of their bodily autonomy, privacy, religious freedoms, philosophical beliefs, and rights to refuse medical treatment. Initially, most courts spurned these constitutional challenges, in light of historical legal support for mandates and the sheer public health threat posed by the pandemic. According to one source, between April and October 2021, 30 courts refused to block vaccine mandates.

In one closely watched case, a federal judge in July 2021 approved Indiana Universitys broad vaccine mandate affecting students and faculty to protect the publics health. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which turned away a chance to review and overturn the decision.

In select cases, however, courts rejected governmental and private sector policies requiring COVID vaccines. Some judges expressly disdained vaccine mandates that disallowed exemptions, largely on grounds of perceived infringements of religious freedoms.

In January 2022, the Supreme Court struck down the Occupational Health and Safety Administrations vaccinate-or-test requirement for large employers. At the same time, the Court upheld a separate federal mandate requiring vaccinations for health care workers. This mandate was required for health care facilities to continue receiving funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. As such, the Court ruled it was an acceptable exercise of the governments federal spending powers. In the case of the large-employer mandate, however, the Court determined that the government had overstepped its authority to regulate interstate activities. To date, the Court continues to ponder the constitutionality of Bidens federal contractor mandate even though the national public health emergency sustaining it was voluntarily lifted in May 2023.

Exemptions. Even where mandates remain intact, their continued effectiveness depends on compliance, and that compliance rate has recently been dropping. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have documented precipitous increases of Americans claiming religious or non-medical exemptions. Some challengers argue for exemptions from governmental vaccine mandates pursuant to the First Amendments free exercise of religion clause.

Neither the Supreme Court nor most lower courts specifically recognize a constitutional guarantee to religious exemptions from neutral and generally applicable vaccine mandates. Generally, the Court considers a law to be neutral when it does not target religion specifically. Recently, it has signaled that vaccine mandates providing medical exemptions, but not religious ones, may not be considered neutral, which could lead to stricter scrutiny.

While the Court has not directly reviewed a case asserting constitutional free-exercise-of-religion arguments against mandates, a ruling this past June could open the door to further exemptions on statutory grounds. In Groff v. DeJoy, which involved an evangelical Christian postal service employee who did not believe in working on Sundays, the Court clarified requirements under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act. Under the law, employers must offer employees religious accommodations that are not unduly burdensome. Though not specifically about vaccine mandates, the Courts conclusion substantially raised the bar on what actually constitutes an undue burden for employers, complicating employee adherence to mandates in the future, especially in nursing and other health care sectors. Already, in September 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed two lawsuits alleging that employers had failed to properly accommodate employees seeking exemptions from their employers COVID vaccine policies.

Absent affirmative First Amendment protections requiring religious exemptions, governments can ignore or eliminate broad religious exemptions without tripping federal constitutional requirements. In 2021, Connecticut joined five other states offering no religious exemptions to school vaccine requirements, immediately engendering litigation. In August 2023, the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed free exercise challenges to Connecticuts law, although additional claims are proceeding.

In other states, court rulings or laws are expanding exemptions. In April 2023, a federal court required Mississippi to allow religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements. For decades, the state had among the highest state vaccination rates among school-aged children, in part owing to its limited exemptions. Such rates may decline in the years ahead based on this decision.

Shifting vaccine attitudes. Judicial treatment of COVID mandates partly reflects shifting national views over vaccinations generally. Skeptical attitudes furthered by influential, well-funded anti-vaccine efforts contributed to legislative reforms, as well.

During the pandemic, elected representatives in key vaccine-adverse jurisdictions introduced and passed legislation banning private businesses, and even state and local governments, from requiring COVID vaccinations. By the end of June 2023, 26 states had legislatively limited COVID vaccine mandates.

Negative assessments in many states have not been limited to COVID public health measures. Some jurisdictions are re-assessing long-standing school vaccination requirements, enacting legislation to make exemptions easier. For decades, all states have conditioned school attendance on meeting a full schedule of childhood vaccinations. Courts have routinely authorized employer vaccine mandates, especially in the health care sector. These public health laws are now under attack. Montanas legislature attempted to ban vaccine mandates, excepting pre-existing school requirements, until a federal court found the measure unconstitutional in late 2022. Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the Vaccine Freedom Bill prohibiting mandates by private employers.

National attitudes, adverse public health laws, and judicial decisions are chipping away at one-time solid childhood vaccine rates. Only 65 percent of parents in December 2022 believed healthy children should be required to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) to attend school, down from 76 percent in October 2019. In November 2023, the CDC reported that US parents seeking exemptions from childhood vaccine requirements during the 2022-2023 school year reached the highest level ever. National averages for school vaccinations plateaued at approximately 93 percent this past year, which is sufficiently below recommended compliance levels. Consequently, new vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks among schoolchildren are virtually assured.

Ongoing legal and policy challenges around vaccinations unnecessarily threaten the health of children, patients, workers, and communities overall. Legislatures or courts broadening vaccine exemptions is specious. Rescinding long-standing vaccine mandates on grounds of personal autonomy, misinformation, and governmental distrust is indefensible.

Efficacious vaccinations allocated fairly and administered safely are indispensable to reducing death and illness tied to emerging infectious diseases. With routine contagions like measles, mumps, and rubella making comebacks, advanced strains of COVID and annual flu re-surfacing, and new, emerging infectious conditions always on the horizon, legal and political rejection of vaccine mandates and greater allowances of exemptions are antithetical to proven public health practices.

The rest is here:

COVID vaccines went 'on trial.' Are routine childhood vaccine mandates at risk? - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal filed by four New Jersey nurses over the states COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers.

Even though the mandate has since been rescinded, a 2022 lawsuit brought by four nurses from Hunterdon Medical Center was still winding its way through the court system. The nurses had challenged the constitutionality of three of Gov. Phil Murphys executive orders requiring health care workers in New Jersey be immunized.

But the Supreme Court announced Monday that it wouldnt hear the appeal, allowing a lower courts ruling to stand.

The lawsuit was filed by Katie Sczesny, Jamie Rumfield, Debra Hagen and Mariette Vitti, all nurses from the Flemington hospital, who claimed the mandate violated their constitutional rights.

The executive orders signed last year (and lifted earlier this year) were at the center of the case. They required those working in health care and high-risk congregate settings to be up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations, including a first booster shot. Workers also had to show proof of vaccination.

The nurses filed an injunction aiming to block the hospital from enforcing the mandate, but that was ultimately denied by a U.S. District Court judge in June 2022 because the nurses failed to demonstrate the policy violated their constitutional rights, according to a report by the New Jersey Business and Industry Association.

By the time the case reached the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the matter was ruled moot because the mandate had already been lifted.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Spencer Kent may be reached at skent@njadvancemedia.com.

Read the rest here:

U.S. Supreme Court wont hear COVID vaccine case filed by N.J. nurses - NJ.com

The abortion drug Mifepristone, also known as RU486, is pictured in an abortion clinic February 17, 2006 in Auckland, New Zealand. (Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)

A version of this article originally appeared in the Daily Hampshire Gazette.

In nations banning abortion across the world, activists have created community support networks facilitating access to abortion pills. In June 2022, when the Supreme Court eliminated constitutional abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization and many states banned abortion, U.S. activists were ready to create their own alternative supply systems for abortion pills.

Over the last several years, in anticipation of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and in response to the Covid pandemic, activists developed interstate telemedicine abortion services and community support networks that are now providing abortion pills to people living in all 50 states, including states with bans. As a result, abortion pills are now more accessible and affordable than ever before.

Two medications are used for early abortion: mifepristone, which blocks the effects of the pregnancy-sustaining hormone progesterone; and misoprostol, a commonly-used ulcer medication that causes contractions to expel pregnancy tissue. Used in combination, these medications are 98 percent effective in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and safer than Tylenol.

Before COVID-19, abortion pills were hard to access and expensive. Despite being safe and easy to use, the abortion pill mifepristone was more heavily restricted than opioids. The FDA allowed only certified physicians to dispense abortion pills, which they were required to do in personan unusual and medically unnecessary requirement. These restrictions combined with an expensive medical system meant that patients had to pay an average of $560 for an abortion with pills at U.S. clinics, despite the fact that the pills are used at home and cost only two to three dollars per dose to manufacture.

During COVID-19, reproductive health advocates challenged these FDA restrictions in court, leading to a shift in FDA policy to allow telemedicine abortion for the first time. As a result, clinicians could prescribe the medication remotely and mail abortion pills to patients for a much lower cost. Telemedicine abortion clinics quickly sprouted up in about half of states.

After Dobbs, several states passedtelemedicine abortion provider shield laws that allowed clinicians licensed in those states to provide telemedicine abortion to people living in any state. With these new protections, telemedicine abortion providers began serving patients in states with abortion bans.

One interstate telemedicine abortion clinic, Aid Access, recently reported they are mailing abortion pills to 5,500 people living in states with abortion bans each month. Whereas before COVID-19, patients had to travel hundreds of miles to brick-and-mortar clinics, walk a gauntlet of protesters and pay on average $560 for medication abortion, now they can obtain these pills from the privacy of their own homes for a sliding scale fee of up to $150 in all 50 states.

Access to these safe and easy-to-use medications has increased outside of the medical system as well. In response to new abortion bans,community support networkssuch as Red State Access, Las Libres, AccessMA, and WeSaveUs began sending free abortion pills to people living in states banning abortion. Meanwhile, increased demand led to a proliferation of websites selling pills, which dropped their prices from hundreds of dollars before Dobbs to as low as $37 per dose today.

The creative actions of reproductive health advocates in response to COVID-19 and Dobbs have ripped away decades of political and medical red tape and finally placed abortion pills directly in the hands of people who need them.

Information about these community support networks and vetted websites selling pills is readily available from the organization Plan C, which conducts research and publicly shares information about how people are accessing abortion pills in the United States. Confidential support services have developed, including the Miscarriage +Abortion Hotline with medical professionals ready to assist people using abortion pills, the Reprocare Healthline providing logistical and emotional support, and the Repro Legal Hotline available to answer legal questionsall at no charge. People can also find support at the abortion subreddit run by OARS, the Abortion Online Resource Squad. A new online chatbot namedCharleyhelps abortion seekers in all 50 states find quick, accurate and confidential abortion information, tailored to their individual needs and circumstances.

These seismic changes in abortion pill access have broken through decades of political and medical barriers that have limited access to abortion pills. The climate of fear and intimidation created by the anti-abortion movement led to overregulation of this safe and easy-to-use medication and few clinicians willing to navigate these burdensome restrictions, which blocked increased access and drove up prices. New pathways for accessing abortion pills spurred by COVID-19 and Dobbs have finally freed mifepristone from the vise grip ofthese unjust political and medical barriers.

Anti-abortion extremists are now trying once again to limit access to abortion pills in a lawsuit currently on appeal at the Supreme Court, but the cat is out of the bag. Even if they win this lawsuit, the robust alternative supply networks established in the wake of Dobbs will persist. The creative actions of reproductive health advocates in response to COVID-19 and Dobbs have ripped away decades of political and medical red tape and finally placed abortion pills directly in the hands of people who need them.

Read more:

See the article here:

COVID-19 and Dobbs Spur Surprising Increase in Abortion Pill Access - Ms. Magazine

As calls for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination grow around the world, its becoming ever more crucial to understand what these injections actually are. The mRNA vaccines created by Moderna and Pfizer are in fact gene therapies.

As Ill explain below, theres simply no way around this, and drug manufacturers and public health officials must be made to admit this fact. Why? Because it makes all the difference in the world. You cannot mandate a gene therapy against COVID-19 any more than you can force entire populations to undergo gene therapy for a cancer they do not have and may never be at risk for.

Interestingly enough, mainstream media, fact checkers and various industry front groups insist the gene therapy claim is bogus, even though every single detail about the vaccines shouts otherwise. Why are they spreading this disinformation? Why do they not want you to know what these injections actually are?

In short, they know labeling them as gene therapies would be like slapping a skull and crossbones label on them. Most people have enough common sense to realize that gene therapy is a different ballgame from a regular vaccination, and might be a bad idea, especially for children and younger individuals. Anthrax 9/11: The US C... Webb, George Buy New $1.99 (as of 05:26 UTC - Details)

mRNA Vaccines Fulfill None of the Criteria for a Vaccine

To start, lets take a look at some basic definitions of words. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is:1

Immunity, in turn, is defined as:

Thats the medical definition. The legal definition, in the few cases where it has been detailed, is equally unequivocal:

These definitions, both medical and legal, present problems for mRNA vaccines, since:

Dictionaries Attempt to Rewrite Medical Terms

Curing the Incurable: ... Levy, MD JD Thomas E Best Price: $22.60 Buy New $18.89 (as of 08:55 UTC - Details) We should not be fooled by attempts to condition the public to accept redefined terms. As of February 2019, Merriam-Webster defined5vaccine as a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease. By February 26, 2021, they had updated the definition of vaccine to:6

A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the bodys immune response against a specific infectious disease:

a:an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)

b:a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)

Lets be clear. Merriam-Webster does not dictate medical terminology. It can be used, however, to confuse people. For now, all medical dictionaries still show the traditional definition of vaccine,7as Merriam-Webster did up until this year. That said, I would not be surprised if changes are made there as well, eventually, if the misrepresentation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is allowed to stand.

mRNA Therapy Doesnt Satisfy Public Health Measure Directive

Theres also the issue of whether a gene therapy can be mandated, and this may hinge on it being accepted as a vaccine. The 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts8essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit.

Put another way, the ruling argues (although legal experts diverge on some of the finer details of its interpretation) that its acceptable for some individuals to be harmed by a public health directive as long as it benefits the collective. However, if vaccination is a public health measure meant to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to accomplish two things:

How to Live Longer and... Pauling, Linus Best Price: $3.99 Buy New $11.70 (as of 04:15 UTC - Details) Were now back to the original problem that mRNA therapies for COVID-19 do not accomplish either of these things. Since these gene therapies do not render the person immune, and do not inhibit transmission of the virus, they cannot qualify as a public health measure capable of providing collective benefit that supersedes individual risk.

On the contrary, the only one benefiting from an mRNA vaccine is the individual receiving the gene therapy, since all they are designed to do is lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein.

In other words, they wont keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they are only supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected. So, getting vaccinated protects no one but yourself. Since youre the only one who will reap a benefit (less severe COVID-19 symptoms upon infection), the justification to accept the risks of the therapy for the greater good of your community is blatantly irrational.

Marketing mRNA Therapy as Vaccine Violates Federal Law

Since mRNA vaccines do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, referring to them as vaccines, and marketing them as such, is a deceptive practice that violates915 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,10the law that governs advertising of medical practices.

The lack of completed human trials also puts these mRNA products at odds with 15 U.S. Code Section 41. Per this law,11,12it is unlawful to advertise that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.

Heres the problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 vaccine trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.

Whats more, key secondary end points in Modernas trial include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease (defined as need for hospitalization) and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms.13,14However, Moderna did not actually measure rate of infection, stating that it was too impractical to do so.

That means theres no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating that the claims are true.

Making matters worse, both Pfizer and Moderna are now eliminating their control groups by offering the real vaccine to any and all placebo recipients who want it.15The studies are supposed to go on for a full two years, but by eliminating the control group, determining effectiveness and risks is going to be near impossible. The Vitamin Cure for I... Andrew W. Saul Best Price: $7.67 Buy New $12.56 (as of 10:17 UTC - Details)

What Makes COVID Vaccines Gene Therapy?

Alright. Lets move on to the definition of gene therapy. As detailed on MedlinePlus.govs What Is Gene Therapy page:16

Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease Researchers are testing several approaches to gene therapy, including: Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease

Although gene therapy is a promising treatment option for a number of diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the technique remains risky and is still under study to make sure that it will be safe and effective. Gene therapy is currently being tested only for diseases that have no other cures.

Here, its worth noting that there are many differenttreatments that have been shown to be very effective against COVID-19, so it certainly does not qualify as a disease that has no cure. It makes sense that gene therapy should be restricted to incurable diseases, as this is the only time that taking drastic risks might be warranted. That said, heres how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gene therapy:17

Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a persons genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene

Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly

Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

November 17, 2020, the American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy, noting that:18

Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.

These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.

Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a persons cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.

mRNA Deliver New Genetic Instructions

As explained in the ASGCTs video above, mRNA are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA vaccines deliver a synthetic version of mRNA into your cells that carry the instruction to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the antigen, that then activates your immune system to produce antibodies. Then theres Modernas trial website,19where they describe their technology thus: How Not To Die With Tr... Henriques, Tiago Best Price: $18.23 Buy New $17.97 (as of 08:00 UTC - Details)

Typical vaccines for viruses are made from a weakened or inactive virus, but mRNA-1273 is not made from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is made from messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), a genetic code that tells cells how to make protein, which help the bodys immune system make antibodies to fight the virus.

November 18, 2020, Wired magazine made a big deal about COVID-19 vaccines being genetic vaccines, noting:20

The active ingredient inside their shot is mRNA mobile strings of genetic code that contain the blueprints for proteins. Cells use mRNA to get those specs out of hard DNA storage and into their protein-making factories. The mRNA inside Pfizer and BioNTechs vaccine directs any cells it reaches to run a coronavirus spike-building program.

Importantly, as reported by David Martin, Ph.D.,21,22Moderna describes its product not as a vaccine, but as gene therapy technology in SEC filings. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission. Additionally, Modernas SEC filings specifically state that Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA, as well.23

mRNA Is Proven Form of Gene Therapy

In a February 2021 article, MIT Technology Review reviewed the history of mRNA technology in general, and Modernas in particular, stating:24

Vaccines were not their focus. At the companys founding in 2010, its leaders imagined they might be able to use RNA to replace the injected proteins that make up most of the biotech pharmacopoeia, essentially producing drugs inside the patients own cells from an RNA blueprint. We were asking, could we turn a human into a bioreactor? says Noubar Afeyan, the companys cofounder

Bloomberg, in August 2020, reported25that the Moderna vaccine would seek to transform your body into a vaccine-making machine. The New York Times was more to the point. In May 2020, they reported26that Researchers at two Harvard-affiliated hospitals are adapting a proven form of gene therapy to develop a coronavirus vaccine. Read it again A proven form of gene therapy.

So, to summarize: The definition of genetic is something relating to genes, and the definition of therapy is the medical treatment of a disease. The definition of gene therapy is the process of modifying or manipulating the expression of a gene, or altering the biological properties of living cells.

mRNA are snippets of genetic code that instructs cells to produce proteins. mRNA COVID-19 therapies deliver genetic instructions into your cells, thereby triggering your body to produce a fragment of the virus (the spike protein). So, mRNA vaccines ARE gene therapy. Theres simply no way around this. They fulfill all the definitions of gene therapy and none of the definitions for a vaccine.

Defining COVID-19

Theres yet one more potential problem with the COVID-19 vaccine narrative as a whole, which Martin unpacked in a January 25, 2021, interview on the Wise Traditions podcast (above).27In it, he explains:

COVID-19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases.

The problem that we have is that in February [2020], the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between [SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19]. One is a virus, in their definition, and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19.

The problem with that definition, and with the expectation, is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2, are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. Thats the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.

In short, SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be definitively proven to be the actual cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen the viral spike protein cannot even be touted as a preventative against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.

They have been willfully lying since the inception of this,Martin says in the interview.There is not a causal link between these things It has never even been close to established.

We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, I dont want to get COVID-19. What they mean is they dont want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other. A viral infection hasnt been documented in the majority of what is called cases.

There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. Thats the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy

What is this doing? Its sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen A vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. Its not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin

Its not somewhat different. Its not the same at all Its not a prohibiting infection. Its not a prohibiting transmission device. Its a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then, allegedly, your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine which is to trigger the immune response this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.

Why the Misrepresentation?

As for why drug companies are misrepresenting this technology, Martin suspects its done exclusively so that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public health laws that exploit vaccination.

Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. This is indeed a major incentive to make sure this technology is perceived as a vaccine and nothing else.

So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency, when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they are insulated from any liability.

Experimental Gene Therapy Is a Bad Idea

Ive written many articles detailing the potential and expected side effects of these gene therapy vaccines. If all of this is new to you, consider reviewing How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System, Seniors Dying After COVID Vaccine Labeled as Natural Causes and Side Effects and Data Gaps Raise Questions on COVID Vaccine.

The take-home message here is that these injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. Whats happening here is a medical fraud of unprecedented magnitude, and it really needs to be stopped before its too late for a majority of people.

If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies youd use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce.

Last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Childrens Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:28

Sources and References

The Best of Dr. Joseph Mercola

Link:

Covid-19 Vaccines Are Gene Therapy - LewRockwell

Ohio Supreme Court to decide whether Ohio State, other universities can be sued over COVID-19 closures  NBC4 WCMH-TV

Read the original here:

Ohio Supreme Court to decide whether Ohio State, other universities can be sued over COVID-19 closures - NBC4 WCMH-TV