# A Letter To Employers Mandating Vaccines



## OscarW

Dear Boss,

Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

Three key concerns: first, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees’ medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.

At the outset, consider the “problem” being “solved” by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren’t they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and “very rare.” Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the vaccine as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing.

This evidentiary limitation on any employer’s decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn’t even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees? First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the “option to accept or refuse administration” of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 )

This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ).

As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/...ance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical).

An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation.

The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee’s medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines. Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear “no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

With Regards,
Employee of the Year


----------



## Becky1951

OscarW said:


> Dear Boss,
> 
> Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)
> 
> Three key concerns: first, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees’ medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.
> 
> At the outset, consider the “problem” being “solved” by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren’t they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and “very rare.” Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the vaccine as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing.
> 
> This evidentiary limitation on any employer’s decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn’t even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees? First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the “option to accept or refuse administration” of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 )
> 
> This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ).
> 
> As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).
> 
> Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/...ance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical).
> 
> An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation.
> 
> The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee’s medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines. Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )
> 
> Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear “no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)
> 
> With Regards,
> Employee of the Year


So even after the vaccines become FDA approved and if employers insist employee's get vaccinated or lose their jobs, the employers risk law suits and would lose if they could not prove substantial evidence under the ADA guidelines, or they could be breaking the law according to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Alligatorob

OscarW said:


> Dear Boss,


Interesting, but it seems a bit at odd with what the EEOC says (in part, see https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-issues-updated-covid-19-technical-assistance for all):

_Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations.  Other laws, not in EEOC’s jurisdiction, may place additional restrictions on employers.  From an EEO perspective, employers should keep in mind that because some individuals or demographic groups may face greater barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination than others, some employees may be more likely to be negatively impacted by a vaccination requirement._

It is a sticky issue...


----------



## Aneeda72

In right to work states any employee can be fired for any reason.  Therefore, an employee who refuses to be vaccinated could be fired for walking and chewing gum and/or walking and not chewing gum.  

Most employees in states that are not right to work states can still be fired for a variety of reasons.  The fix is in .


----------



## Alligatorob

Aneeda72 said:


> Therefore, an employee who refuses to be vaccinated could be fired for walking and chewing gum and/or walking and not chewing gum


Same thing for a vaccinated employee...  For the most part we rely on the market to sort out employers who make bad decisions.  An employer who fires people for bad reasons ends up being less competitive than smarter employers.  That usually works, and is less burdensome than regulation.  There are however lots of exceptions.


----------



## Murrmurr

Alligatorob said:


> Interesting, but it seems a bit at odd with what the EEOC says (in part, see https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-issues-updated-covid-19-technical-assistance for all):
> 
> _Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations.  Other laws, not in EEOC’s jurisdiction, may place additional restrictions on employers.  From an EEO perspective, employers should keep in mind that because some individuals or demographic groups may face greater barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination than others, some employees may be more likely to be negatively impacted by a vaccination requirement._
> 
> It is a sticky issue...


But it also states "Other laws, not in EEOC’s jurisdiction, may place additional restrictions on employers." So that whole thing was a waste of keystrokes, imo. At the very least, it makes the issue a lot less sticky.


----------



## Don M.

The longer this virus lingers, and more people continue to get infected, we are quite likely to see a lot more "restrictions" placed upon society.  If people won't take "voluntary" actions to protect themselves, and others, businesses and governments will have no other choice but to impose invasive rules against those who are contributing to the spread of Covid.


----------



## Murrmurr

Aneeda72 said:


> In right to work states any employee can be fired for any reason.  Therefore, an employee who refuses to be vaccinated could be fired for walking and chewing gum and/or walking and not chewing gum.


An employee can file a legal complaint against an employer if the employee feels s/he was fired unfairly or illegally. And should a court rule against the employee, s/he can file an unlimited number of appeals.


----------



## Murrmurr

Don M. said:


> The longer this virus lingers, and more people continue to get infected, we are quite likely to see a lot more "restrictions" placed upon society.  If people won't take "voluntary" actions to protect themselves, and others, businesses and governments will have no other choice but to impose invasive rules against those who are contributing to the spread of Covid.


Authoritarian communists countries are already doing that.


----------



## Don M.

Murrmurr said:


> Authoritarian communists countries are already doing that.



Yup, and the longer that our nation remains so divided on important issues, the more likely that our entire society will begin to slide downhill.


----------



## Murrmurr

Don M. said:


> Yup, and the longer that our nation remains so divided on important issues, the more likely that our entire society will begin to slide downhill.


So maybe we should respect and support each other despite our differences. That could keep us up on that hill.


----------



## Pepper

Murrmurr said:


> So maybe we should respect and support each other despite our differences. That could keep us up on that hill.


Dream on......


----------



## Murrmurr

Pepper said:


> Dream on......


Dream on 
_Dream o-on_ (screaming)
Dream until your dreams come true ~Aerosmith


----------



## Pepper

Murrmurr said:


> Dream on
> _Dream o-on_ (screaming)
> Dream until your dreams come true ~Aerosmith


Ugh.  Aerosmith.


----------



## Tish

This morning, it was just announced that all front line workers, including supermarket workers, will have to be vaccinated.
We are getting closer and closer to mandate vaccination.


----------



## ProTruckDriver

Don M. said:


> Yup, and the longer that our nation remains so divided on important issues, the more likely that our entire society will begin to slide downhill.


The United States is already on a downward slide with nothing to stop it. Look around, Socialism is almost here.


----------



## Aneeda72

Murrmurr said:


> An employee can file a legal complaint against an employer if the employee feels s/he was fired unfairly or illegally. And should a court rule against the employee, s/he can file an unlimited number of appeals.


And without a job they will get the money to do this where?


----------



## Aneeda72

Pepper said:


> Ugh.  Aerosmith.


The result of drugs, sex, and rock n roll


----------



## Alligatorob

I believe everyone who can should get vaccinated, I did and I encourage people to vaccinate.  I also wear a mask when it seems to make sense.  However in most cases I do not support government mandates except perhaps for individuals who are highly exposed to the public.  Where I think the US government has failed us is in getting out good, understandable, and consistent data and messaging on this topic.  I believe most people would make the right decision if they had information they could trust.

The reason I don't support government mandates this time is I just don't think this thing is bad enough to justify it.  The death rate just isn't high enough.  However this should be a good opportunity for us to look carefully at how bad a pandemic would have to be to justify mandatory restrictions.  If the death rate was 50% I think most people would support mandatory restrictions, but where is the breakpoint and how do we decide.  Its a good time to start thinking about that, leaving the decision until a worse pandemic comes along will make that decision process a lot harder to get right, and slower.

In the US we also need to think about the legalities of mandating things.  Right now the government has limited authority, when a really bad one hits that could be a problem.  Discussing it openly now would be better.  I suspect most of the "mandatory" orders we saw and are still seeing may not be legally enforceable.  

My touchstone on this were the "mandatory" evacuations that the government issued for hurricanes in Florida.  I lived on the Florida coast for many years and soon learned that these were meaningless and unenforceable.  I even found that you could drive around road blocks set up to keep people away from low lying areas.  Just thank the officers and drive around is what I did.  

The mandatory evacuation orders were often issued irresponsibly, most people ordered to leave did not really have to for safety.  Result was many people who should have stayed home clogged the highways and filled all the motel rooms for hundreds of miles... You rarely hear the statistics but in most storms I believe more people were killed in evacuation traffic than by the storms.  

This also lead to the crying wolf thing, ask people to evacuate too many times when after the fact it was obviously unnecessary people are less likely to listen when it really is.  I think the orders were mostly CYA things to protect the authorities from later being accused of not doing enough.  Never got any flack for issuing an unnecessary order, but not issuing one when it was called for was a big political problem.

We need to figure out how to get it better before the really bad pandemic.


----------



## Aneeda72

Alligatorob said:


> I believe everyone who can should get vaccinated, I did and I encourage people to vaccinate.  I also wear a mask when it seems to make sense.  However in most cases I do not support government mandates except perhaps for individuals who are highly exposed to the public.  Where I think the US government has failed us is in getting out good, understandable, and consistent data and messaging on this topic.  I believe most people would make the right decision if they had information they could trust.
> 
> The reason I don't support government mandates this time is I just don't think this thing is bad enough to justify it.  The death rate just isn't high enough.  However this should be a good opportunity for us to look carefully at how bad a pandemic would have to be to justify mandatory restrictions.  If the death rate was 50% I think most people would support mandatory restrictions, but where is the breakpoint and how do we decide.  Its a good time to start thinking about that, leaving the decision until a worse pandemic comes along will make that decision process a lot harder to get right, and slower.
> 
> In the US we also need to think about the legalities of mandating things.  Right now the government has limited authority, when a really bad one hits that could be a problem.  Discussing it openly now would be better.  I suspect most of the "mandatory" orders we saw and are still seeing may not be legally enforceable.
> 
> My touchstone on this were the "mandatory" evacuations that the government issued for hurricanes in Florida.  I lived on the Florida coast for many years and soon learned that these were meaningless and unenforceable.  I even found that you could drive around road blocks set up to keep people away from low lying areas.  Just thank the officers and drive around is what I did.
> 
> The mandatory evacuation orders were often issued irresponsibly, most people ordered to leave did not really have to for safety.  Result was many people who should have stayed home clogged the highways and filled all the motel rooms for hundreds of miles... You rarely hear the statistics but in most storms I believe more people were killed in evacuation traffic than by the storms.
> 
> This also lead to the crying wolf thing, ask people to evacuate too many times when after the fact it was obviously unnecessary people are less likely to listen when it really is.  I think the orders were mostly CYA things to protect the authorities from later being accused of not doing enough.  Never got any flack for issuing an unnecessary order, but not issuing one when it was called for was a big political problem.
> 
> We need to figure out how to get it better before the really bad pandemic.


Well, if it’s not your family members that have died then, sure, the pandemic is not bad.  But if it’s your family members that have died than the pandemic is horrific.

As your baby, preschooler, child, pre teen, teenager, young adult child lays dying while you beg whatever God there is to take you, TAKE YOU, you will go willingly; but it’s in vain.  The babe is dead.

Then, tell mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, brother and sister, and the rest of the family that the pandemic was not bad enough.  That mandatory masking was not necessary.  That the virus is a hoax.  That the vaccine doesn’t work.  And watch them bury their child.  Putting a child in the ground is hard, very hard, I know.


----------



## Alligatorob

Aneeda72 said:


> Putting a child in the ground is hard, very hard, I know.


I am sorry you have that knowledge directly, I am lucky not to have.  I know it has to effect how you see things, understandably so.

People I know have died of Covid, but so far all were older and with pre-existing conditions.  Still, people who would probably be alive were it not for Covid.  However I have known many more who died in automobile accidents, children included, no less tragic.  The point is we have always accepted some risk in return for freedom of action.  Its a good time to talk about this relative to pandemics...


----------



## Murrmurr

Aneeda72 said:


> And without a job they will get the money to do this where?


There are hundreds of thousands of labor law attorneys who work pro-bono and even more who take cases with no money up-front, paid only if you win monetary compensation.


----------



## Pepper

Alligatorob said:


> The death rate just isn't high enough.


The really bad thing about this pandemic is that our hospitals are overwhelmed.  Selective surgeries, even those which are eventually life or death, are being postponed, ignored.  This is very wrong.  Health workers overworked and under stress.  If it takes a mandate to preserve health care, then that's what we must do.


----------



## AnnieA

Don M. said:


> Yup, and the longer that our nation remains so divided on important issues, the more likely that *our entire society will begin to slide downhill*.



*Emphasis mine*:   Begin???  We're nearly over the precipice.


----------



## Alligatorob

Pepper said:


> The really bad thing about this pandemic is that our hospitals are overwhelmed. Selective surgeries, even those which are eventually life or death, are being postponed, ignored.


Is this still true?  It was once, but no longer is here.  I have a niece in Florida who has been a nurse in a Covid unit, she tells me their business is so far down that folks are being transferred elsewhere.

What is the current situation in NYC?


----------



## Pepper

@Alligatorob 
Conditions are terrible in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.  

NYC, thank you, is doing fine, everything's opening up.  The Mayor wants vaccination proof for events and then you can gather maskless.


----------



## Time Waits 4 No Man

Don M. said:


> The longer this virus lingers, and more people continue to get infected, we are quite likely to see a lot more "restrictions" placed upon society.  If people won't take "voluntary" actions to protect themselves, and others, businesses and governments will have no other choice but to impose invasive rules against those who are contributing to the spread of Covid.


Here's the problem I have with statements like this: if there are those among us who claim they are "only concerned about the health and well-being of their fellow human beings" and therefore are appalled over the very thought of "any human life" being lost to Covid-19, then why do I get the uneasy feeling most of these same people would be shrieking in the streets should even one person speak out for the lives of unborn human beings who are routinely slaughtered in the most horrific way by abortion doctors? 






​


----------



## Pink Biz

Supreme Court justice won't block college vaccine mandate​Thursday August 12, 2021






Barrett has refused to block a plan by Indiana University to require students and employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Barrett's action came in response to an emergency request from eight students, and it marked the first time the high court has weighed in on a vaccine mandate. 

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-justice-wont-block-215620592.html


----------



## Murrmurr

Pink Biz said:


> Supreme Court justice won't block college vaccine mandate​Thursday August 12, 2021
> 
> 
> 
> Barrett has refused to block a plan by Indiana University to require students and employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Barrett's action came in response to an emergency request from eight students, and it marked the first time the high court has weighed in on a vaccine mandate.
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-justice-wont-block-215620592.html


One down, eight to go.

The Supreme Court has one job....one; protect our constitutional rights without bias.


----------



## Pink Biz

Murrmurr said:


> One down, eight to go.


Are you referring to the number of Supreme Court justices? She has ruled on behalf of the _entire_ Supreme Court.

As the article states:

*"The court's newest justice rejected the plea without even asking the university for a response or getting her colleagues to weigh in. Justices often act on their own in such situations when the legal question isn't particularly close. Barrett handles emergency matters from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which includes Indiana."*


----------



## Murrmurr

Pink Biz said:


> Are you referring to the number of Supreme Court justices? She has ruled on behalf of the _entire_ Supreme Court.
> 
> As the article states:
> 
> *"The court's newest justice rejected the plea without even asking the university for a response or getting her colleagues to weigh in. Justices often act on their own in such situations when the legal question isn't particularly close. Barrett handles emergency matters from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which includes Indiana."*


*smacks forehead*


----------



## Jennina

Time Waits 4 No Man said:


> Here's the problem I have with statements like this: if there are those among us who claim they are "only concerned about the health and well-being of their fellow human beings" and therefore are appalled over the very thought of "any human life" being lost to Covid-19, then why do I get the uneasy feeling most of these same people would be shrieking in the streets should even one person speak out for the lives of unborn human beings who are routinely slaughtered in the most horrific way by abortion doctors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


Maybe it's better not to  conflate 2 issues? Covid is complicated enough as it is. 

But I do get your frustration on hypocrisy in general. I see people showing  conflicting values because everything has been politicized.


----------



## Butterfly

Pink Biz said:


> Are you referring to the number of Supreme Court justices? She has ruled on behalf of the _entire_ Supreme Court.
> 
> As the article states:
> 
> *"The court's newest justice rejected the plea without even asking the university for a response or getting her colleagues to weigh in. Justices often act on their own in such situations when the legal question isn't particularly close. Barrett handles emergency matters from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which includes Indiana."*



She blocked the students' demand for emergency relief.  Requests for emergency relief ordinarily do not allow response by the other party.


----------



## Aneeda72

Murrmurr said:


> There are hundreds of thousands of labor law attorneys who work pro-bono and even more who take cases with no money up-front, paid only if you win monetary compensation.


True, but you are still on the hook for the expenses and those can be a lot


----------



## Aneeda72

Jennina said:


> Maybe it's better not to  conflate 2 issues? Covid is complicated enough as it is.
> 
> But I do get your frustration on hypocrisy in general. I see people showing  conflicting values because everything has been politicized.


Not to change the thread but since it was brought up, I am going to respond.

The abortion issue is so very complicated it can not in any way be compared to the vaccine issue.  It is not only about my body my decision, but there are very many issues about the fetus itself that effect the question of abortion as well.

For example, the wide spread practice of the abortion of the imperfect fetus.  I think the abortion of people with Down’s Syndrome is genocide since people with Down‘s Syndrome are genetically different and perhaps their own race.  I adopted a child with DS.

Compare that to a child born with a severe hydrocephalic condition-who has only a brain stem and no brain.  Should a child without a brain be allowed to be born and endure life?  Does a child without a brain even have a soul?  Idk.  But I agreed to foster-adopt him.  Did he even know we were there? 

Does the 12 year old, pregnant by rape, have to carry the baby to term?

Conflicting values?  Vaccine vs. Abortion?  @Jennina Hmm, there is no conflict.  The two issues have nothing in common.  Btw, I am Catholic, I am pro choice.  I was kidnapped and raped when I was 7 years old.  Thankfully, I did not become pregnant as it is rare but possible.


----------



## Time Waits 4 No Man

Jennina said:


> Maybe it's better not to  conflate 2 issues? Covid is complicated enough as it is. But I do get your frustration on hypocrisy in general. I see people showing  conflicting values because everything has been politicized.



Not everybody is in agreement on this issue precisely because it has been politicized. But even if every single person was on the same page (politically speaking) there would still be disagreement. What it comes down to is _trust_, or the lack thereof. For many, whatever trust in the authorities there had been has since been burnt to a cinder by a succession of lies,  half-truths, distortions, and partisan politics. 

Now, as for "conflating two issues" here's my reasoning: many pro-vaxxers cite "concern for human life" over and over again (in defense of the vaccine) while simultaneously accusing anti-vaxxers of being sadistic bastards who have no value for human life. Unfortunately, this so-called concern doesn't come across that way, especially when one considers other areas of society where that "concern for human life" is utterly devoid.  

For example, consider for a moment the many views pro-vaxxers have about the "sanctity of life":

• "I love baby seals! It's cruel to club them to death!" (values baby seal lives)
•  "Those poor, starving African children! We mustn't let them die from starvation!" (values human life in this particular case) 
•  "I don't care if he's a heroin addict! His life is too precious to lose!" (values human life in this particular case) 
•  "Get the goddamn Covid vaccine! I value human life and you clearly don't!" (values human life in this particular case) 
•  "What? You're against abortion! But we have a right to kill unborn babies because, "it's our body, our choice!" So shut  up with your "all human life is precious!" slogan!" (does not value human life in this particular case)

So, is this really conflation? Or just drawing a valid comparison and parallel between the hypocrisy of standing on the "moral high ground of valuing human life" while at the same time giving the green light to approximately one million human exterminations per year in the US? Frankly, such people do not hold the high ground - unless it's the high ground atop a fiery hill down in Hell. So, as I see it, get the Covid vaccine if you wish, and so do quietly. Likewise for those who don't wish to get it. But do not pretend for an instant that you "value human life" if you are also pro-abortion. And that's one reason (among many) why the pro-vaxxers bleating about "protecting our children!" when they also have no qualms whatsoever about obliterating the lives of our unborn children.

In the end, we are now a permanently divided nation. In a sense, we are the East Germany/West Germany of North America. Or the South Africa of that continent. Or the America of the early 1860's, before all hell broke loose.


----------



## Time Waits 4 No Man

Aneeda72 said:


> The abortion issue is so very complicated it can not in any way be compared to the vaccine issue.



Again, I think you're missing the point. This is not about comparing what the medical decision regarding the "abortion of an imperfect fetus" should be. Instead, it is about those who claim they "value human life" when it comes to demanding mandatory Covid vaccines while simultaneously shrugging off the butchering of a NORMAL and healthy unborn human being via abortion. That is the issue: either you value human life (all human life) or you do not. Attempting to obfuscate this basic premise with digressions into tributary issues of "Down's Syndrome", "12 year olds pregnant by rape", and so forth is just evading the fundamental issue here. In short, it is hypocritical to preach to anti-vaxxers about "not valuing human life" while one does not value the human life of an unborn child. 

It's as simple as that. 

Is there a solution to this conflict? Sure, but not everyone will agree with it. Even so, here it is:

Get the Covid vaccine if you wish
Don't get the Covid vaccine if you wish
Either way, remain silent about it


----------



## suds00

i worked in the field of employment discrinination. most of the cases that i saw did not have complainants who had legal counsel the vast majority of attorneys'want a goodly sum of money to represent any individual.it's difficult to find someone to represent someone on a pro bon basis.


----------



## Nosy Bee-54

Good for Canada!

*"*Canada is making COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for all workers in federal service by this fall, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Dominic LeBlanc announced on Friday.

“We are also calling on all federally-regulated industries and sectors, and we are also calling on crown corporations to follow suit,” LeBlanc told reporters in French at a news conference.

The requirement will extend to travellers on commercial flights, interprovincial passenger trains and cruise ships."

https://globalnews.ca/news/8110086/canada-mandatory-covid-19-vaccines-federal-workers-fall/

Unvaxxed Americans won't be able to head north, so Mexico will be it or stay home.


----------



## Aneeda72

Time Waits 4 No Man said:


> Again, I think you're missing the point. This is not about comparing what the medical decision regarding the "abortion of an imperfect fetus" should be. Instead, it is about those who claim they "value human life" when it comes to demanding mandatory Covid vaccines while simultaneously shrugging off the butchering of a NORMAL and healthy unborn human being via abortion. That is the issue: either you value human life (all human life) or you do not. Attempting to obfuscate this basic premise with digressions into tributary issues of "Down's Syndrome", "12 year olds pregnant by rape", and so forth is just evading the fundamental issue here. In short, it is hypocritical to preach to anti-vaxxers about "not valuing human life" while one does not value the human life of an unborn child.
> 
> It's as simple as that.
> 
> Is there a solution to this conflict? Sure, but not everyone will agree with it. Even so, here it is:
> 
> Get the Covid vaccine if you wish
> Don't get the Covid vaccine if you wish
> Either way, remain silent about it


We agree to disagree.  I am saying that you can not tell, in many cases, which human beings are “normal and healthy” at a certain gestational age and which are not.  I am saying ”normal and healthy” should have no bearing on weather a fetus is aborted or not.  I am not attempting to “obfuscate” the issue.  I am disagreeing with you.  

And while I also agree, to a certain extent that I am tired of the many threads on the issue, no one has to remain silent about anything.  Last time I checked freedom of speech still applied to the forum.  If people want to discuss vaccine issues, discuss away.


----------



## Aneeda72

Time Waits 4 No Man said:


> Not everybody is in agreement on this issue precisely because it has been politicized. But even if every single person was on the same page (politically speaking) there would still be disagreement. What it comes down to is _trust_, or the lack thereof. For many, whatever trust in the authorities there had been has since been burnt to a cinder by a succession of lies,  half-truths, distortions, and partisan politics.
> 
> Now, as for "conflating two issues" here's my reasoning: many pro-vaxxers cite "concern for human life" over and over again (in defense of the vaccine) while simultaneously accusing anti-vaxxers of being sadistic bastards who have no value for human life. Unfortunately, this so-called concern doesn't come across that way, especially when one considers other areas of society where that "concern for human life" is utterly devoid.
> 
> For example, consider for a moment the many views pro-vaxxers have about the "sanctity of life":
> 
> • "I love baby seals! It's cruel to club them to death!" (values baby seal lives)
> •  "Those poor, starving African children! We mustn't let them die from starvation!" (values human life in this particular case)
> •  "I don't care if he's a heroin addict! His life is too precious to lose!" (values human life in this particular case)
> •  "Get the goddamn Covid vaccine! I value human life and you clearly don't!" (values human life in this particular case)
> •  "What? You're against abortion! But we have a right to kill unborn babies because, "it's our body, our choice!" So shut  up with your "all human life is precious!" slogan!" (does not value human life in this particular case)
> 
> So, is this really conflation? Or just drawing a valid comparison and parallel between the hypocrisy of standing on the "moral high ground of valuing human life" while at the same time giving the green light to approximately one million human exterminations per year in the US? Frankly, such people do not hold the high ground - unless it's the high ground atop a fiery hill down in Hell. So, as I see it, get the Covid vaccine if you wish, and so do quietly. Likewise for those who don't wish to get it. But do not pretend for an instant that you "value human life" if you are also pro-abortion. And that's one reason (among many) why the pro-vaxxers bleating about "protecting our children!" when they also have no qualms whatsoever about obliterating the lives of our unborn children.
> 
> In the end, we are now a permanently divided nation. In a sense, we are the East Germany/West Germany of North America. Or the South Africa of that continent. Or the America of the early 1860's, before all hell broke loose.


Clearly you have issues about abortion


----------



## Jennina

Aneeda72 said:


> Not to change the thread but since it was brought up, I am going to respond.
> 
> The abortion issue is so very complicated it can not in any way be compared to the vaccine issue.  It is not only about my body my decision, but there are very many issues about the fetus itself that effect the question of abortion as well.
> 
> For example, the wide spread practice of the abortion of the imperfect fetus.  I think the abortion of people with Down’s Syndrome is genocide since people with Down‘s Syndrome are genetically different and perhaps their own race.  I adopted a child with DS.
> 
> Compare that to a child born with a severe hydrocephalic condition-who has only a brain stem and no brain.  Should a child without a brain be allowed to be born and endure life?  Does a child without a brain even have a soul?  Idk.  But I agreed to foster-adopt him.  Did he even know we were there?
> 
> Does the 12 year old, pregnant by rape, have to carry the baby to term?
> 
> Conflicting values?  Vaccine vs. Abortion?  @Jennina Hmm, there is no conflict.  The two issues have nothing in common.  Btw, I am Catholic, I am pro choice.  I was kidnapped and raped when I was 7 years old.  Thankfully, I did not become pregnant as it is rare but possible.


I'm totally speechless.

I'm sorry to hear about the abuse you had to endure as a child.  And what you do with the children is just commendable.

I totally agree with you that the two issues shouldn't  be compared and that abortion is such a complex issue. That's the reason I said we shouldn't conflate the 2.

I do see however, why @Time Waits 4 No Man   went that route. "You want to save lives with the vaccine because you value human life yet you are OK with killing babies." At first blush, there seems to be dissonance. Similarly, one can create dissonance with being  both pro life and  pro gun. 

But  the irony is such oversimplification will complicate any honest to goodness discourse that's devoid of political agenda.  Barely scratching the surface of two complex issues, conflating them and taking a position may be expedient but not sound. 

But just the same,  following his/her train of thought, I acknowledge the seeming hypocrisy of people who embrace two issues with conflicting values.   I don't want to tread  on political waters here which I gather is no-no  in this forum, but I'm sure you've seen people claiming to be pro "something" and then doing something that is totally against that thing they claim to support. 

For the record, I'm pro vaccine and I'd like to  think of myself as pro- choice. My body. My life. My death. My choice. 

I hope you and your children are keeping healthy and safe


----------



## Jennina

Time Waits 4 No Man said:


> Not everybody is in agreement on this issue precisely because it has been politicized. But even if every single person was on the same page (politically speaking) there would still be disagreement. What it comes down to is _trust_, or the lack thereof. For many, whatever trust in the authorities there had been has since been burnt to a cinder by a succession of lies,  half-truths, distortions, and partisan politics.
> 
> Now, as for "conflating two issues" here's my reasoning: many pro-vaxxers cite "concern for human life" over and over again (in defense of the vaccine) while simultaneously accusing anti-vaxxers of being sadistic bastards who have no value for human life. Unfortunately, this so-called concern doesn't come across that way, especially when one considers other areas of society where that "concern for human life" is utterly devoid.
> 
> For example, consider for a moment the many views pro-vaxxers have about the "sanctity of life":
> 
> • "I love baby seals! It's cruel to club them to death!" (values baby seal lives)
> •  "Those poor, starving African children! We mustn't let them die from starvation!" (values human life in this particular case)
> •  "I don't care if he's a heroin addict! His life is too precious to lose!" (values human life in this particular case)
> •  "Get the goddamn Covid vaccine! I value human life and you clearly don't!" (values human life in this particular case)
> •  "What? You're against abortion! But we have a right to kill unborn babies because, "it's our body, our choice!" So shut  up with your "all human life is precious!" slogan!" (does not value human life in this particular case)
> 
> So, is this really conflation? Or just drawing a valid comparison and parallel between the hypocrisy of standing on the "moral high ground of valuing human life" while at the same time giving the green light to approximately one million human exterminations per year in the US? Frankly, such people do not hold the high ground - unless it's the high ground atop a fiery hill down in Hell. So, as I see it, get the Covid vaccine if you wish, and so do quietly. Likewise for those who don't wish to get it. But do not pretend for an instant that you "value human life" if you are also pro-abortion. And that's one reason (among many) why the pro-vaxxers bleating about "protecting our children!" when they also have no qualms whatsoever about obliterating the lives of our unborn children.
> 
> In the end, we are now a permanently divided nation. In a sense, we are the East Germany/West Germany of North America. Or the South Africa of that continent. Or the America of the early 1860's, before all hell broke loose.


Hey. Very interesting post. I like posts that get  my puny mind thinking. Anyway, will reply to you later. I'm sensing we're from opposite sides of the fence. So should be interesting. "I'll be back!" 


Time Waits 4 No Man said:


> Not everybody is in agreement on this issue precisely because it has been politicized. But even if every single person was on the same page (politically speaking) there would still be disagreement. What it comes down to is _trust_, or the lack thereof. For many, whatever trust in the authorities there had been has since been burnt to a cinder by a succession of lies,  half-truths, distortions, and partisan politics.
> 
> Now, as for "conflating two issues" here's my reasoning: many pro-vaxxers cite "concern for human life" over and over again (in defense of the vaccine) while simultaneously accusing anti-vaxxers of being sadistic bastards who have no value for human life. Unfortunately, this so-called concern doesn't come across that way, especially when one considers other areas of society where that "concern for human life" is utterly devoid.
> 
> For example, consider for a moment the many views pro-vaxxers have about the "sanctity of life":
> 
> • "I love baby seals! It's cruel to club them to death!" (values baby seal lives)
> •  "Those poor, starving African children! We mustn't let them die from starvation!" (values human life in this particular case)
> •  "I don't care if he's a heroin addict! His life is too precious to lose!" (values human life in this particular case)
> •  "Get the goddamn Covid vaccine! I value human life and you clearly don't!" (values human life in this particular case)
> •  "What? You're against abortion! But we have a right to kill unborn babies because, "it's our body, our choice!" So shut  up with your "all human life is precious!" slogan!" (does not value human life in this particular case)
> 
> So, is this really conflation? Or just drawing a valid comparison and parallel between the hypocrisy of standing on the "moral high ground of valuing human life" while at the same time giving the green light to approximately one million human exterminations per year in the US? Frankly, such people do not hold the high ground - unless it's the high ground atop a fiery hill down in Hell. So, as I see it, get the Covid vaccine if you wish, and so do quietly. Likewise for those who don't wish to get it. But do not pretend for an instant that you "value human life" if you are also pro-abortion. And that's one reason (among many) why the pro-vaxxers bleating about "protecting our children!" when they also have no qualms whatsoever about obliterating the lives of our unborn children.
> 
> In the end, we are now a permanently divided nation. In a sense, we are the East Germany/West Germany of North America. Or the South Africa of that continent. Or the America of the early 1860's, before all hell broke loose.


Okay, so right off the bat, there are a couple of things that need to be resolved in terms of approach. 

1.  @Aneeda72   is zooming in on issues and you're zooming out
2. @Aneeda72  is "attacking" the issue, you're attacking the people. 

I'm with Aneeda on this and let me explain why.

Zooming out to create an umbrella position which is the "sanctity of life" will lead to errors in reasoning when analyzing individual issues because  "sanctity of life" may have different  nuances of meaning in every issue. 

Let's try your system

Using "sanctity of life" based on the abortion issue, let's agree on a "no kill" umbrella meaning.

1. No kill means no wars
2. No kill means no guns
3. If we include animals, no kill means no animal farming.(BTW, I agree with this.) 

What else? I'm out of examples.

The second approach is focusing on issue not people.  We've all been taught this. No need to explain. 

The slogan. I will make a guess why the pro vaxxers are throwing that line to anti vaxxers.

1. Covid happened. People are dying.
2. Government comes up with solutions vaccine,  masks, lockdown
3. Anti group says "no!"  offering no solutions of their own because there are not enough people dying. 
4. Pro group says "All human life is precious."

I don't agree that America is permanently divided. 

Rise above politics and masks will just be masks and not a symbol of fascism. Doctors use it all the time to protect their patients.  Rise above politics and vaccines will just mean protection.  
Rise above politics and lockdown will just mean staying at home so you can let covid die on its own. 

OK. Now your turn


----------



## Ladybj

I am not team vax.  My hubby got the vaccine about 4 months ago and is loosing weight.  He eats 3 meals a day.. a big eater.  He though he gained weight when he recently went to the dr but he lost almost 20 pounds.  He has not done anything different other than take the vaccine.  I am not saying it is due to the vaccine but I am not ruling it out either.  Too many unanswered questions and it is being pushed too hard..forced beyond measure. I guess it is what it is - can't control it - we all do what we feel is best for us.


----------



## Aneeda72

Ladybj said:


> I am not team vax.  My hubby got the vaccine about 4 months ago and is loosing weight.  He eats 3 meals a day.. a big eater.  He though he gained weight when he recently went to the dr but he lost almost 20 pounds.  He has not done anything different other than take the vaccine.  I am not saying it is due to the vaccine but I am not ruling it out either.  Too many unanswered questions and it is being pushed too hard..forced beyond measure. I guess it is what it is - can't control it - we all do what we feel is best for us.


Well, if he is overweight that’s a good thing according to my doctors who say that while they don’t like the reason behind my losing weight, they like that I am losing weight.  This is why they don’t worry about weight loss.

It it keeps up, I wouldn’t blame the vaccine, but I would look for a reason for the weight loss.  Common reasons are diabetes, stomach issues, and cancer.


----------



## Alligatorob

Aneeda72 said:


> Conflicting values? Vaccine vs. Abortion? @Jennina Hmm, there is no conflict. The two issues have nothing in common.


I agree, they are pretty much separate issues.  In both however I do not like the idea of the government requiring people to do things, not unless those things have significant societal impacts and the vast majority of the population supports the action.  I think of this as the conservative position.   

In the case of the vaccine, as I have said I don't think the virus is bad enough to warrant most government mandates, however schools may be an exception to that.  On the other hand I do believe private employers and retail establishments should have the right to do what they think best.  I also support the government getting involved in research, public education, and helping with production and distribution of vaccines and information, just not in telling people what they have to do.

On abortion I just don't see that it is an issue on which we have enough consensus of opinion or a sufficiently tangible impact on society for the government to act.  I believe the government needs to stay out of it.  I am at a loss as to why people don't consider this the "conservative" position...


----------



## Alligatorob

Ladybj said:


> My hubby got the vaccine about 4 months ago and is loosing weight. He eats 3 meals a day.. a big eater. He though he gained weight when he recently went to the dr but he lost almost 20 pounds. He has not done anything different other than take the vaccine. I am not saying it is due to the vaccine but I am not ruling it out either.


I would talk with your doctor about this, sounds serious enough to require figuring out.  I kind of doubt its the vaccine - a very non-expert opinion, speculation really.  I believe y'all need to try and figure it out, and start by asking a real doctor.

Best of luck with it, I hope it's nothing serious.


----------



## Sunny

Ladybj said:


> I am not team vax.  My hubby got the vaccine about 4 months ago and is loosing weight.  He eats 3 meals a day.. a big eater.  He though he gained weight when he recently went to the dr but he lost almost 20 pounds.  He has not done anything different other than take the vaccine.  I am not saying it is due to the vaccine but I am not ruling it out either.  Too many unanswered questions and it is being pushed too hard..forced beyond measure. I guess it is what it is - can't control it - we all do what we feel is best for us.


If losing weight was a side effect of the vaccine, that vaccine would be the most popular item in this country!  

Sorry, not really trying to make light of it; losing weight for no particular reason is a serious medical symptom.   And the doctor's records showed that he lost 20 pounds and followed it up with nothing?  I would switch to another doctor.


----------



## oldman

Aneeda72 said:


> In right to work states any employee can be fired for any reason.  Therefore, an employee who refuses to be vaccinated could be fired for walking and chewing gum and/or walking and not chewing gum.
> 
> Most employees in states that are not right to work states can still be fired for a variety of reasons.  The fix is in .


This is true and I know first-hand that the second line is definitely true. My neighbor was fired for insubordination, which covers any and all things. It’s a catch-all reason to get rid of someone. My neighbor refused to buy a tool that would have cost him $1800. The company offered to take $20 a pay until it was paid off, but he still declined, so he was given the boot. PA is not a right-to-work state. He did not belong to any union. This was not a union shop.

He went to a lawyer and the lawyer told him that the company was within their right to terminate his employment.


----------



## oldman

Murrmurr said:


> One down, eight to go.
> 
> The Supreme Court has one job....one; protect our constitutional rights without bias





Pepper said:


> The really bad thing about this pandemic is that our hospitals are overwhelmed.  Selective surgeries, even those which are eventually life or death, are being postponed, ignored.  This is very wrong.  Health workers overworked and under stress.  If it takes a mandate to preserve health care, then that's what we must do.


Here in my part of PA, hospitals are both OK in this county. Everything is operating as normal. My wife is a friend to a doctor’s wife up the street and she told my wife that her husband, the doctor at the hospital was complaining about not having much to do on the day shift, so he was considering moving to the overnight shift in the ER. We are thankful that we have been so fortunate.


----------



## Murrmurr

oldman said:


> Here in my part of PA, hospitals are both OK in this county. Everything is operating as normal. My wife is a friend to a doctor’s wife up the street and she told my wife that her husband, the doctor at the hospital was complaining about not having much to do on the day shift, so he was considering moving to the overnight shift in the ER. We are thankful that we have been so fortunate.


It's pretty much business as usual around here, too - shootings and assaults about the same, but covid numbers are down.


----------



## Brookswood

Don M. said:


> Yup, and the longer that our nation remains so divided on important issues, the more likely that our entire society will begin to slide downhill.


There are people on social media who would like that.  It's very sad.


----------



## Ladybj

Sunny said:


> If losing weight was a side effect of the vaccine, that vaccine would be the most popular item in this country!
> 
> Sorry, not really trying to make light of it; losing weight for no particular reason is a serious medical symptom.   And the doctor's records showed that he lost 20 pounds and followed it up with nothing?  I would switch to another doctor.


However you did make light of it which is neither good or bad.. it is what it is.  I am not going to give negative energy to negative energy.


----------



## Ladybj

Sunny said:


> If losing weight was a side effect of the vaccine, that vaccine would be the most popular item in this country!
> 
> Sorry, not really trying to make light of it; losing weight for no particular reason is a serious medical symptom.   And the doctor's records showed that he lost 20 pounds and followed it up with nothing?  I would switch to another doctor.


I would not want a vaccine to help me loose weight..it will have MAJOR side effects.  As I have stated, the vaccine is the only thing I can think of - nothing else in his life has changed.  Him and I are a bit concerned..nothing to take lightly.  But I get that if it's not your issue or someone you love...  you can make light of it.


----------



## ohioboy

Pink Biz said:


> Are you referring to the number of Supreme Court justices? She has ruled on behalf of the _entire_ Supreme Court.
> 
> As the article states:
> 
> *"The court's newest justice rejected the plea without even asking the university for a response or getting her colleagues to weigh in. Justices often act on their own in such situations when the legal question isn't particularly close. Barrett handles emergency matters from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which includes Indiana."*


Murrmurr is correct though.


----------



## ohioboy

Aneeda72 said:


> In right to work states any employee can be fired for any reason.


That's employment "At Will" states, not right to work States.


----------



## Brookswood

I have a relative who works at a nearby hospital. They opened a new Covid ward and filled it in two days.    That happened about two weeks ago.      ICU beds in my state are filled mostly with unvaccinated Covid patients.  Virtually no vaccinated people are in the ICU due to Covid.


----------



## Butterfly

ohioboy said:


> That's employment "At Will" states, not right to work States.


You beat me to it!


----------



## ohioboy

oldman said:


> This is true and I know first-hand that the second line is definitely true. My neighbor was fired for insubordination, which covers any and all things. It’s a catch-all reason to get rid of someone.
> 
> He went to a lawyer and the lawyer told him that the company was within their right to terminate his employment.


Of course there are exceptions to at will discharge, the problem is soliciting an attorney to take it on a contingency basis. Even if taken to court, the burden of proof still rests with the plaintiff. Then there is the issue of any appeals, etc. Unless the case merits the facts to win big bucks or it is a relative, etc., to get a discount, you are on your own, but there are times the EEOC (if they have jurisdiction over the complaint) will file suit themselves or issue a "Right to sue" letter to the complainant, if applicable.


----------



## ohioboy

suds00 said:


> i worked in the field of employment discrinination. most of the cases that i saw did not have complainants who had legal counsel the vast majority of attorneys'want a goodly sum of money to represent any individual.it's difficult to find someone to represent someone on a pro bon basis.


Not only procedural issues, but a plaintiff must deal with the defendant's lies. I represented myself in a wrongful termination case because I knew how, and in their papers, you would not believe the LIES the defendant told the Company's lawyer when they filed their Answer among other papers. It was not worth it monetarily as far as what was prayed for, but when facts came out and my statements became more believable, they settled. It was basically a hollow victory, but the principle of it drove me to fight. 

I only know of 2 cases that the employer basically admitted guilt, but the penalty was so small in one case, and the settled law was on their side in the other, that is, until their state Supreme court fooled them. The employee in question refused to shoot the "Moon" as the others did on their company outing at the River camp, then the harassment started, followed by termination.

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1985/17646-pr-2.html


----------

