Discover more from The Healthy American, Peggy Hall
Another Covid-Related Lawsuit Comes to an End
What is the end result for New Yorkers?
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) was quick to claim victory in one of their lawsuits against the state of New York for the cooties vaccine “mandate” for healthcare workers, but who is really winning?
Note: I support legal proceedings being taken to halt these unlawful and illegitimate measures, but it’s important to dig deeper because things aren’t always as they are presented.
Here’s the headline and a brief description from The Defender:
“New York State Supreme Court Upholds Ruling That Struck Down COVID Vaccine Mandate for Health Workers”
“A January ruling by the New York State Supreme Court that struck down the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers will stand, after the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department, late last week dismissed an appeal by the state.
“The appeal is dismissed, the mandate is over and Judge [Gerard J.] Neri’s decision stands,” said Sujata Gibson, attorney for the plaintiffs. “This was an important victory. While it does not make healthcare workers whole, it does protect us from future overreach by the executive branch.”
The state Supreme Court on Jan. 13 declared New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers “null, void, and of no effect,” and ruled that the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) lacked the authority to impose the mandate.”
I analyzed that initial ruling in this video and you can read my full analysis below.
The covid vaccine “mandate” was found by the court to be “arbitrary and capricious” because the vaccines don’t stop transmission (emphasis added).
I understand there were multiple arguments presented, but do you see the issue with this one? Think about the slippery slope of possibilities when you open the gates to scientific “consensus” in a court of law. Think about any other medical intervention or procedure that the government or your employer could order you to undergo, such as a vasectomy requirement for all men. Do we want to argue about "the science" or protect YOUR RIGHT to NO CONSENT?
Judge Neri noted the NY Health Department lacked the authority to impose this mandate, but threw the ball back in the legislature’s court meaning something (as unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, and illegitimate) such as a "vaccine mandate" is a power reserved to the state legislature.
Why is it that no one wants to flat-out reject this invalid premise? No law that requires anyone to undergo any medical intervention against their will can ever be legitimate and constitutionally sound.
Since my analysis of this ruling, NY state appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling one week later. In the meantime, the defendants were granted a temporary STAY until an appellate decision was rendered. This means that the judgement or order of the court is suspended pending appeal. So, in this CHD case, the vaccine "mandate" was permitted to continue on with nothing safeguarding more employees from being terminated or discriminated against in the meantime.
Unsurprisingly, before the court of appeals ruled on the case, NY State announced that they planned to rescind the mandate which would render the original lawsuit “moot” and requested the original decision striking down the mandate as “arbitrary and capricious” be vacated. The mootness argument is a classic government tactic especially in defense of their violations during “an emergency.”
Oh, you didn’t know?! Apparently when a fake, phony, fraudulent emergency is proclaimed, the rule of law and the Constitution are ostensibly put on hold until the emergency is over! At which point any lawsuits related to the emergency are considered "moot."
“The agency's statement also noted the Health Department will not pursue any new enforcement of the mandate, but added health "facilities should continue to implement their own internal policies regarding COVID-19 vaccinations" as the repeal process progresses.” Source.
Back to CHD’s victory dance: “New York State Supreme Court Upholds Ruling That Struck Down COVID Vaccine Mandate for Health Workers”
By the way, this headline is misleading. To uphold in the legal world means a higher court validates and rules that a legal decision that has already been made is correct. The appeals court made no decision on the merits of this case. The court declared the issue was moot because the regulation had been repealed and dismissed the case.
CHD President Mary Holland told The Defender:
“Victory! The good news is that this means that the lower court’s decision stands as the law in New York, holding, among other things, that it is irrational and illegitimate to mandate a vaccine that cannot stop transmission, particularly if the stated purpose is to stop the spread of the disease.
“This precedent will serve us in the future if businesses or government consider new vaccine mandates.
There goes Mary with her qualifying phrases, adding things that aren't relevant when the matter at hand is your God-given rights. She made similar comments in an earlier press release when the court initially struck this mandate down.
“CHD President Mary Holland stated, “We are thrilled by this critical win against a COVID vaccine mandate, correctly finding that any such mandate at this stage, given current knowledge is arbitrary. We hope that this decision will continue the trend towards lifting these dangerous and unwarranted vaccine mandates throughout the country.”
Mary’s comments make me wonder… Were these requirements justified at any point ever? Is that why they didn’t file a lawsuit earlier? Does this imply that it will be suitable at some point in the future? Is she alluding to the idea that "current knowledge” of “the science" is a relevant factor in justifying these requirements? The protection and preservation of our God-given rights is not subject to the current scientific "consensus," nor are our rights subject to infringement at the whim of any corporate or government entity or any declarations of “emergency.”
Sure, this case resulted in a favorable ruling for CHD, but the petitioners were seeking two things: 1. A declaratory judgement and 2. A court order permanently restraining Respondents from implementing or enforcing the covid vaccine mandate regulation. However, after this ruling, the court granted Respondents a stay meaning they could continue enforcing the vaccine requirement (aka the harm could continue).
As I mentioned, I applaud and celebrate any small victories along the way, but ask yourself who is really winning? It’s another case that leaves the door wide open for these actions to be acceptable if the vaccine mandate in dispute was over a vaccine that was deemed safe and “stopped transmission.” None of the healthcare workers were made whole. There were no ramifications for the hospitals and no compensation or reinstatement for the wrongfully terminated employees. And the government was successful at continuing on with their tyranny the entire time and suffered no consequences.
All that being said, I’m not saying this lawsuit was a waste and I am always in favor of taking action, but where are the important actions against these unconstitutional laws on the books? NY law already has mandatory vaccination requirements for children, and in 2019, the NY legislature stripped its citizens of even more constitutional liberties by abolishing religious exemptions to vaccine requirements. You'd expect that an organization called "Children's Health Defense" would be pursuing lawsuits challenging these existing laws and seeking to repeal them... but I forgot that CHD's mission is vaccine safety (because you know… mandating safe vaccines is justified) so once the Junior jabs are on the market the laws are already in place!
The Healthy American, Peggy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To stay connected, subscribe below for free ↓