The legal action is heating up.
The people must get behind it everywhere, especially Melbourne.
From the Childrens Health Defence:
My summary and opinion.
An appeals court has revived a lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate, ruling that the district misapplied the Jacobson v. Massachusetts precedent. The court noted that unlike traditional vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission, thus they should not be mandated under the same rationale. The decision reverses a previous dismissal by a lower court and allows the case to proceed.
The lawsuit, filed by the Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) and LAUSD employees, argued that the mandate violated personal rights, including bodily integrity and the right to refuse medical treatment. The plaintiffs highlighted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had changed the definition of "vaccine" to fit COVID-19 shots, which do not provide immunity in the traditional sense.
The appeals court's decision is seen as a significant legal victory for the plaintiffs, emphasizing the distinction between medical treatments and vaccines. The ruling suggests that the government cannot mandate medical treatments that do not prevent disease transmission, reinforcing the constitutional right to refuse such treatments. The case will now return to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings.
This ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against the Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate has significant implications for other COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The court ruled that the LAUSD misapplied the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which allowed for compulsory vaccination to prevent the spread of smallpox. The court noted that COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission in the same way traditional vaccines do, thus distinguishing them as medical treatments rather than prophylactic vaccines. The ruling emphasised that individuals have a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. This distinction between a vaccine that prevents disease transmission and a medical treatment that mitigates symptoms is crucial. The court's decision suggests that mandates for treatments that do not prevent transmission may not be justified under the same legal framework as traditional vaccines.
This ruling could encourage similar legal challenges to other COVID-19 vaccine mandates, especially those imposed by state and local governments or institutions. Plaintiffs in other cases may argue that COVID-19 vaccines should not be mandated under the same rationale as traditional vaccines. The decision may have a "chilling effect" on future government attempts to mandate vaccines. Governments may need to build a stronger evidence base to justify such mandates, particularly focusing on the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing transmission, not just reducing symptoms. The focus may even change to the increases in multiple and serious childhood illnesses caused by the adverse effects of childhood vaccines on the psycho-neuro-immunological and endocrine systems.
Well-financed anti-vaccination groups may use this ruling to bolster their arguments in court, potentially leading to more successful challenges against vaccine mandates. This could result in a more cautious approach by governments when implementing public health measures, especially where there are better, safer and more natural ways of preventing and treating infectious diseases.
The LAUSD may appeal the ruling to a larger panel of judges on the 9th Circuit. If the ruling stands, the case will return to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings, potentially setting a more detailed legal precedent on the issue.
The ruling could potentially influence Australian law and vaccine mandates, but its direct legal impact is limited. The ruling highlights a significant legal distinction between traditional vaccines that prevent transmission and COVID-19 vaccines, which primarily reduce symptoms. This distinction could be referenced in Australian legal arguments and policy discussions, especially given the interconnected nature of legal principles across jurisdictions. Australian courts often consider international legal developments, particularly from jurisdictions with similar legal traditions, such as the United States. The reasoning in the LAUSD case might be cited in future Australian cases challenging vaccine mandates.
The ruling emphasises the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, which aligns with human rights principles. In Australia, human rights legislation in states like Queensland, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory could see similar arguments being made, as seen in recent Queensland Supreme Court decisions. The Queensland Supreme Court recently ruled that vaccine mandates for emergency workers were unlawful due to inadequate consideration of human rights implications, highlighting the importance of balancing public health measures with individual rights.
The LAUSD ruling could also embolden similar legal challenges in Australia, particularly where mandates are seen as overreaching or not adequately justified by public health needs. This is evident from the Queensland Supreme Court's decision, which found procedural flaws in the imposition of mandates. Policymakers in Australia may need to provide stronger justifications for vaccine mandates, ensuring they are proportionate and necessary to achieve public health goals, and that they respect individual rights. The ruling may prompt Australian authorities to carefully consider the legal and human rights implications of any future vaccine mandates. This includes ensuring that mandates are based on solid evidence of their necessity and effectiveness in preventing disease transmission.
The decision underscores the need for clear communication and transparency in public health directives, which could lead to more robust and legally sound policies in Australia.
The emphasis on distinguishing between vaccines and medical treatments, and the need to respect individual rights, aligns with recent Australian court decisions and could shape the approach to vaccine mandates in the future.
Ian Brighthope
Thanks Ian. One would hope this court ruling (although not exactly a revelation ... the changed definition of 'vaccine' happened early in Covid times) would have wider currency. That depends on our court system being uncompromised, which is perhaps optimistic, remembering the (ongoing) case against Justice Rofe.