Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anecdotal experience. My husband has a heart condition, high BP, and takes meds to lower it. When he got his 2nd vaccination, his BP went dangerously low. He called his Cardiologist who said to stop taking the meds and immediately go to the ER if it went any lower.
Cardiologist said she was going to report this to VAERS. Maybe his should have stopped taking that BP medication before getting vaccinated? CDC wouldn't want to know this and issue a warning?
The sad truth is, the COVID outbreak was politicized almost from the very beginning. Let us not forget it was Hanoi Jane who said COVID was "God's gift to the left" :
.
.
And the "left" has used the COVID outbreak in almost every imaginable way to meddle in and destroy the private live of the American people in addition to destroying their businesses.
You do raise a very, very legitimate concern. But it appears the COVID jabbers are intent on jabbing everyone, and don't care what the consequences may bring, nor care about adhering to the rule of law.
JWK
I have a suppressed immune system and they have tried to bully me into getting the vaccine even though it would provide no benefit and only risk. It's all about compliance. They don't care about you or your health.
I have a suppressed immune system and they have tried to bully me into getting the vaccine even though it would provide no benefit and only risk. It's all about compliance. They don't care about you or your health.
Yup. The government vaccine jabbers are using COVID to brainwash innocent children into believing folks in government are free to impose their will upon the people without question, and regardless of the various limitations placed upon government power which appear in our Constitution.
I am still waiting for someone to explain why the protection of "strict scrutiny" should not be applied to government mandated vaccinations.
The protection of strict scrutiny is not meant to prohibit a government act, which in this case is a COVID vaccination that is asserted to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the people. Instead, the protection of strict scrutiny is there to insure the government mandated vaccination:
(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,
(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,
(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.
Do you not agree that our judicial system needs to stop abdicating its duty and start protecting our police, firefighters, teachers and healthcare workers, and afford them the protection of strict scrutiny which they are indeed entitled to under our system of law?
Is our judicial system so inept that it is incapable to apply “strict scrutiny” in a manner which allows the use of vaccination in furthering the general welfare, while at the same time accommodating the rights of public employees? For example, requiring the use of N95 masks in appropriate situations; having a daily temperature check of employees when showing up for work; periodic testing for the COVID virus; social distancing; providing an exemption for those with natural immunity, and/or those who are resistant to the vaccination, but hold them to the above precautionary methods; and other such common sense measures which could be narrowly tailored by the Court to promote the general welfare of all, while likewise preserving the rights of government employees.
Is not time for our Supreme Court to step in and end the divide among our citizens, and work to accommodate all in such troubled and contentious times?
Good lord, I hate high humidity and heat. Why does liberty have to take a stand in such a hellish place? Why couldn't it have happened in, say, North Dakota? Or UP Michigan? Or Montana? Or northern Maine? I'd move to those places in a minute to avoid tyranny. But not Florida.
I have said this on this forum! I used to live in FL. It's too damn hot and muggy! Great for FL, but why not more cold states. BTW, NH, bud.
the protection of strict scrutiny and covid vaccine mandates
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
I have said this on this forum! I used to live in FL. It's too damn hot and muggy! Great for FL, but why not more cold states. BTW, NH, bud.
Getting back to the subject of the thread, should we not be promoting an adherence to our system's rule of law, and in particular, with reference to vaccine mandates, providing the protection of "strict scrutiny"?
"Because Brasington determined that the right to privacy was central to the case, the vaccine mandate was subject to strict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review that can apply to a law and involves the government proving that a law serves “a compelling public interest” and is narrowly tailored enough to meet that public interest"
Unfortunately, the shyster lawyers representing NYC’s employees were negligent in not pressing the protection of strict scrutiny in a case involving the fundamental rights of city employees.
"Barry Black, lead attorney in Keil v. The City of New York, detailed how the vaccine mandate in the city’s schools was not generally applicable because it was not applied to the general public.
Therefore the mandate needed to undergo strict scrutiny analysis, according to Black. Such strict analysis would require a much deeper look into all of the information surrounding the case, which may include dueling expert testimony and potential cross examination."
Keep in mind that the protection afforded under strict scrutiny is applied whenever a government action, such as a mandated covid vaccination, infringes upon a fundamental protected right, and that right is claimed to have been violated, the government must then establish the act:
(A) is narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,
(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,
(C) and, the Act must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.
.
Nov. 29, 2021
. "Stay remains in place while accommodations reconsidered
City’s review process suspect; Title VII applies on rehearing
Fifteen New York City public school teachers and administrators must have their requests for religious accommodations from the city’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate reconsidered because the mandate may violate their First Amendment rights, the Second Circuit ruled."
This is great news for the teachers and preserving fundamental constitutional guarantees.
I am still waiting for someone to explain why the protection of "strict scrutiny" should not be applied to government mandated vaccinations.
Here's why:
The Feds don't have the authority to issue vaccine mandates, ever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the protection of strict scrutiny and covid vaccine mandates
