HomePoliticsDEMS SET TO PUSH COMPULSORY JAB LAWS FOLLOWING FULL FDA APPROVAL Politics DEMS SET TO PUSH COMPULSORY JAB LAWS FOLLOWING FULL FDA APPROVAL July 6, 2021 Rob Lauer Political Reporter This 4th of July was the deadline for Biden’s CV19 VAX program goal of 70% jabs. They failed to hit that. About 55% of the country so far has refused the jab. Until now, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been operating on an emergency waiver pending full final approval of the experimental never used mRNA VAX. But as the controversial FDA advisory panel is set to give full approval to the vaccines Biden and Dems across the country are set to pass laws mandating CV19 vaccines. Dr. Fauci claims the country needs much higher VAX rates to achieve “Heard Immunity”. Some have been pushing conspiracy theories that unvaccinated folks are causing mutation CV19 variants. But even 55% of Fauci’s own staff have refused the jab. And before you say my body, my choice, our newest Supreme Court Injustice, Amy Barrett, has already ruled in favor of “compulsory vaccination laws”. In August 2020, Pres. Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Barrett, sided with Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s lock downs, which forbid the State GOP from holding a rally, but allowed mass BLM protests. The Illinois Republican Party sued Gov. J.B. Pritzker seeking an injunction against his lock down which allowed churches and mass BLM protests but forbid the GOP from hold meetings and rallies with more than 50 people. The federal appeals court, which Judge Barrett sits on, rejected the State GOP’s arguments that political activities are Constitutionally protected as much as churches, which Gov. Pritzker carved out an except for the 50 in person limit. In addition, the GOP argued that the Democrat Governor played political favorites when he gave mass BLM protesters a pass on his 50 in person limits. But Judge Barrett joined the court in “the opinion, released Thursday by the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the exemption for religion Pritzker issued under some legal and political pressure from religious groups about two months ago did not foreclose the state’s ability to regulate political events as part of efforts to stem spread of the virus.” InJustice Barrett cited Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), more than 100 year old decision that forced a local man to get vaccinated for polio against his will. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. Barrett’s decision included the following written order relying on the Jacobson decision mandating vaccines. The next question relates to the overall validity of EO43 and orders like it, which have been issued in the midst of a general pandemic. As we noted in Elim, the Supreme Court addressed this type of measure more than a century ago, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). The district court appropriately looked to Jacobson for guidance, and so do we. The question the Court faced there concerned vaccination re‐ quirements that the City of Cambridge had put in place in re‐ sponse to a smallpox epidemic. The law made an exception for children who had a physician’s certificate stating that they were “unfit subjects for vaccination,” id. at 12, but it was oth‐ erwise comprehensive. Faced with a lawsuit by a man who did not wish to be vaccinated, and who contended that the City’s requirement violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty, the Court ruled for the City. In so doing, it held that it was appropriate to defer to the City’s assessment of the value of vaccinations— an assessment, it noted, that was shared “by the mass of the people, as well as by most mem‐ bers of the medical profession … and in most civilized na‐ tions.” Id. at 34. It thus held that “[t]he safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that commonwealth to guard and protect,” and that it “[did] not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right se‐ cured by the Federal Constitution.” Id. at 38.