This ruling passed down by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals could have reverberating effects across the nation, in each jurisdiction that — through color of law and inapplicable, more than hundred-year-old precent — shoved experimental drugs down the throats, metaphorically, and into the arms, literally, of American schoolchildren with no rational scientific basis.
Related: Rutgers Unexpectedly Drops Student Vaxx Requirement, Litigation Proceeds
From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling (emphasis added):
“The panel vacated the district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ action alleging that the COVID-19 vaccination policy of the Los Angeles Unified School District (‘LAUSD’)—which, until twelve days after oral argument, required employees to get the COVID-19 vaccination or lose their jobs—interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.
The panel held that the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applied. LAUSD’s pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies was enough to keep this case alive. The record supported a strong inference that LAUSD waited to see how the oral argument in this court proceeded before determining whether to maintain the Policy or to go forward with a pre-prepared repeal option. LAUSD expressly reserved the option to again consider imposing a vaccine mandate. Accordingly, LAUSD has not carried its heavy burden to show that there is no reasonable possibility that it will again revert to imposing a similar policy. Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a ‘traditional’ vaccine. Taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively ‘prevent the spread’ of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply.”
Of course, that the COVID shots don’t prevent transmission is not a mere claim made by plaintiffs in a lawsuit; Pfizer conceded it as well when it acknowledged it never even tested for transmission in its clinical trials
Related: WATCH: Sleazy Pfizer Tool DESTROYED in Australian Senate
As such, there is no legitimate public health rationale for imposing these so-called vaccines — even taking into account the most draconian and wildly unconstitutional rulings on this topic, like the oft-cited Jacobson decision of the early 1900s.
The American Journal of Public Health (emphasis added):
“As the 20th century began, epidemics of infectious diseases such as smallpox remained a recurrent threat. A Massachusetts statute granted city boards of health the authority to require vaccination ‘when necessary for public health or safety.’ In 1902, when smallpox surged in Cambridge, the city’s board of health issued an order pursuant to this authority that required all adults to be vaccinated to halt the disease. The statutory penalty for refusing vaccination was a monetary fine of $5 (about $100 today).”
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs.
Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter and Locals.
For hip Armageddon Prose t-shirts, hats, etc., peruse the merch store.
Support always welcome via the digital tip jar.
