Via PBS:
A person’s choice to decline vaccinations does not outweigh public health and safety requirements in medical settings, a federal judge ruled in a Montana case.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy last week permanently blocked a section of law the state said was meant to prevent employers — including many health care facilities — from discriminating against workers by requiring them to be vaccinated against communicable diseases, including COVID-19.
“The public interest in protecting the general populace against vaccine-preventable diseases in health care settings using safe, effective vaccines is not outweighed by the hardships experienced to accomplish that interest,” Molloy concluded in his Dec. 9 ruling.
The vague, undefined “hardships” that Judge Molloy references presumably include heart inflammation (myocarditis) (previously derided as “conspiracy theory” in corporate media), neurological conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), and other serious health consequences.
This judge’s ruling is tantamount to medical terrorism for the sake of social engineering and Big Pharma profiteering – literally the most morally repugnant function that a government could serve.
The absurdity and immorality of Judge Molloy’s ruling are compounded by the fact that, despite the Public Health™ lie in the early days of the rollout that the jab...
Read More HERE
We have the Nuremberg Code and the US Laws that follow it so this and other Judges that ruled that COVID vaccines must be taken is wrong and any Judge that ruled this should be removed from office and disbarred. The same for any politician or government employee that has ordered this they should be removed from office and jailed, tried due to the laws, and convicted.
ReplyDeleteI could never understand why they put the title "honorable" before their names like politicians as so very FEW of them are actually honorable.
ReplyDeletemy ar15 overturned his ruling on appeal.
ReplyDeleteWhen the festivities begin, never forget that THIS is the "Legal" system today!
ReplyDeletetranslation: "you are nothing more than a piece of livestock; or a pet"
ReplyDeletefuck him
" using safe, effective vaccines"
ReplyDeleteThere you go. The loophole that takes the entire Covid fiasco outside of this ruling.
I will decide what is safe and effective, not some weasel bureaucrat or government propagandist or judge.
The "vaccines" were approved under Emergency Use Authorization. 3 years later that has never changed.
ReplyDelete“Public Safety” for a vaxx that doesn’t prevent the virus infection or spread, and may actually enhance re-infection. In addition, it has significant hazardous side effects that are becoming more obvious by the week. That doesn’t even begin to describe the lack of transparency of the testing in the approval process, nor the amount of money passing from government to pharmaceutical companies and back to the governmental agencies involved in this scam.
ReplyDeleteJust whose safety is being promoted over my ability to decide my own best medical interests?
So by extension an abortion ban is also in the public interest…
ReplyDeleteThe defence lawyer should have asked the following question: “your honour, if it were to be in the best interest of the many, would you be OK if we removed one of your kidneys?”
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t care any less what any judge rules regarding my health and the health of my loved ones!
ReplyDelete