A Lottery With Good Results

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about the lawsuit challenging vaccine mandates.

The article reports:

An appeals court dominated by Republican-nominated judges was chosen at random Tuesday to deal with the flurry of lawsuits against the Biden administration’s private business COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was the winner of a lottery that was triggered by multiple appeals courts receiving challenges to the mandate, which was promulgated at the behest of President Joe Biden and would affect every business with 100 or more workers if it’s allowed to take effect.

Thirty-four petitions for review, or suits, were filed against the mandate. At least one petition was filed in every single court of appeals in the nation.

Federal law says that challenges to a rule in multiple appeals courts shall lead to a lottery, from which one court is picked. That court then handles the cases, which are consolidated.

The article concludes:

Plaintiffs argue the mandate is outside the authority of the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which issued it earlier this month. They say the Biden administration failed to explain why such a mandate is needed now, when the COVID-19 pandemic started in March 2020 and vaccines have been available since late last year.

“This mandate represents the greatest overreach by the federal government in a generation. It is illegal and unconstitutional and we are committed to ensuring it never sees the light of day,” Patrick Hughes, president and co-founder of the Liberty Justice Center, and one of the lawyers fighting the mandate, said in a recent statement.

Biden administration officials have defended the vaccination requirement, arguing OSHA can impose measures to keep workers safe.

“If OSHA can tell people to wear a hard hat on the job, to be careful around chemicals, it can put in place these simple measures to keep our workers safe,” Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, said on NBC over the weekend.

Please do some research on the FDA approval of the vaccines currently being given. There are some serious questions as to exactly what was approved versus what is being administered.

States vs. The Federal Government

Just the News reported  yesterday that twenty-seven states have joined the lawsuit filed against the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate.

The article reports:

The mandate, which is being enforced by the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), will require employers to ensure all their employees are either vaccinated by Jan. 4 or are tested weekly and wearing masks. If the businesses do not follow the mandate, they could face fines of up to $14,000 per violation.

All but one of the states that filed lawsuits, Iowa, have Republican attorneys general. Kansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana are the only three of the 27 states that have Democratic governors, and Iowa’s governor is a Republican.

Kansas Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly criticized President Biden’s vaccine mandate on private businesses on Friday, saying, “While I appreciate the intention to keep people safe, a goal I share, I don’t believe this directive is the correct, or the most effective, solution for Kansas.”

It is interesting that the push for vaccine mandates is occurring as the rate of infection from the coronavirus is slowing. In most parts of the country both the number of people contracting the virus and the number of people dying from the virus are decreasing.

The article lists the courts involved in the various cases:

Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah all joined a lawsuit in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary block on the vaccine mandate, citing the potentially “grave statutory and constitutional issues” raised by the plaintiffs. South Carolina is under the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Utah is under the 10th Circuit.

Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia jointly filed their lawsuit in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Idaho is under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kansas and Oklahoma are under the 10th Circuit, and West Virginia is under the 4th Circuit.

Indiana has announced that it is filing its suit in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming have filed their lawsuit in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Alaska, Arizona, and Montana are under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, New Hampshire is under the 2nd Circuit, and Wyoming is under the 10th Circuit.

Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are suing the Biden administration in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It will be interesting to see how many of these courts reach the same conclusion.

When Is A Law Not A Law?

The Epoch Times posted an article today about the federal vaccine mandates.

The article reports:

Several Republican attorneys general have said that President Joe Biden’s federal mandate for COVID-19 vaccinations hasn’t yet come into effect for private businesses, adding that if it is ordered, they will file lawsuits against it.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, noted that the White House only last week submitted the text of its emergency rule regarding vaccinations to the Office of Management and Budget, meaning it hasn’t gone into effect.

But, Knudsen noted that “no such rule or regulation is currently in effect,” adding (pdf) that there has been a “great deal of confusion” over Biden’s announcement last month.

“Further, my office is preparing to immediately challenge and enjoin this federal overreach on a variety of grounds when the Biden administration issues its announced rule,” he said.

On Sept. 9, Biden announced that he would direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to mandate that all private businesses with 100 or more employees force their workers to get vaccinated or submit to weekly testing. Details about the rule, including fines, have not been released, and White House press secretary Jen Psaki couldn’t answer questions earlier this month about a timeframe on when it would be unveiled.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government the power to order people to take medicine they do not want to take. It may be possible for some states or local entities to find that power under public health laws, but there is no federal precedent for such a requirement.

The article concludes with an interesting statement about the double standard being applied to Americans and those crossing the border illegally:

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, already filed a lawsuit against Biden’s vaccine requirement, arguing that it would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The mandate would treat American workers differently than illegal immigrants who are crossing into the United States from Mexico, arguing that illegal aliens are able to decline the vaccine.

But last week, Biden said that his private-sector mandate will take effect “soon” and will address the “unacceptably high number” of people who have not taken the vaccine.

“The Labor Department is going to soon be issuing an emergency rule for companies with 100 or more employees to implement vaccination requirements,” Biden said on Oct. 14, referring to the mandate.

Earlier this month, a Department of Labor spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that OSHA has been working “expeditiously” to develop the rule, which it described as an “emergency temporary standard.”

The Epoch Times contacted the Department of Labor on Sunday for additional comment.

If the government moves at its typical speed, the word “expeditiously” may mean it will be done by 2024. Meanwhile, we need Attorneys General who will protect our rights. It has never been more obvious that your vote for local and state officials is as important as your vote for President.

I Am Still Wondering What The Big Push For Vaccinations Is About

We have never seen such a strong government push to get people to get a shot. Particularly a shot that has only be approved for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration. Particularly a shot given to people who are not a risk of serious complications from the disease the shot is supposed to prevent. Now there is a new wrinkle in the story.

Yesterday (updated today) The Epoch Times posted an article about something the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recently done.

The article reports:

In order to encourage American workers to get vaccinated, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has suspended the legal requirement for employers to report work-related injuries resulting from vaccinations aimed at combating the CCP virus that causes the disease COVID-19.

This suspension of the law by OSHA does not change the fact that employers may be held liable under workers’ compensation laws or under civil personal injury laws, according to the nonprofit group Liberty Counsel.

Earlier in May, the website of OSHA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), stated that employers could be held liable if they required employees to receive COVID-19-related injections as a condition of employment and the employees then experience adverse reactions.

A “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) section of OSHA’s website stated, “If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7,” according to Liberty Counsel.

But visitors to the same website’s FAQ section now see a different message, which reads:

“DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.”

The article also notes:

“OSHA’s suspension of the recording requirement so as not to discourage experimental COVID shots reveals that the Biden administration could care less about the collateral damage being caused by the COVID shots. The people can see this biased agenda. They are not stupid.”

None of the available COVID-19 shots are approved or licensed by the U.S Food and Drug Administration, Liberty Counsel noted. They come under what’s known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), which means their use cannot be required.

The FDA acknowledges on its website that it “must ensure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine, and of any available alternatives to the product.”

This seems very curious to me. Why would you end reporting on something as important as negative reactions to a vaccine? Wouldn’t it make more sense to record everything and create a study panel to see if they can find specific causes for whatever problems arise?

What Was Said Before It Become Political

On September 10th, The Blaze posted an article about masks. For whatever reason, mask wearing has become political, so the article went back to see what the scientific opinion was before politics entered the picture.

The article reports:

On April 3, already several weeks into the unprecedented lockdown over coronavirus, but before the big media push for universal masking, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued guidance for respiratory protection for workers exposed to people with the virus. It stated clearly what governments had said all along about other forms of airborne contamination, such as smoke inhalation — “Surgical masks and eye protection (e.g., face shields, goggles) were provided as an interim measure to protect against splashes and large droplets (note: surgical masks are not respirators and do not provide protection against aerosol-generating procedures).”

In other words, they knew that because the virions of coronavirus are roughly 100 nanometers, 1/1000 the width of a hair and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations (about 3.0 microns or 3,000 nanometers), surgical masks (not to mention cloth ones) do not help. This would explain why experience has shown that all of the places with universal mask orders in place for months, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, and Miami, failed to stave off the spread of the infection. Surgical masks could possibly stop large droplets from those coughing with very evident symptoms, but would not stop the flow of aerosolized airborne particles, certainly not from asymptomatic individuals.

Scientific studies do not seem to back up the requirement to wear a mask:

Our own U.S. government has failed to produce new evidence that counters years’ worth of evidence that masks don’t work in stopping respiratory viruses and is still producing evidence to the contrary. In June, HHS’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a systemic review of all relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of mask-wearing in stopping respiratory infections and published the findings in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The conclusion was as clear as it is jarring to the current cult-like devotion to mask-wearing. “Review of RCTs indicates that N95 respirators and surgical masks are probably associated with similar risk for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infections in high- and low-risk settings.” The study noted that only one trial did show “a small decrease in risk” for infection when doctors wore N95s in high-risk settings, but even that evidence was scant.

The study looked at eight trials with 6,510 participants that “evaluated use of surgical masks within households with an influenza or influenza-like illness index case (child or adult). Compared with no masks, surgical masks were not associated with decreased risk for clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness, or laboratory-confirmed viral illness in household contacts when masks were worn by household contacts, index cases, or both.” Remember, Dr. Deborah Birx, the Coronavirus Task Force coordinator, is now saying people should wear masks even at home?

It’s time we all asked ourselves, “Why are we wearing masks?”