The Federal Court supports the COVID vaccine mandate in Los Angeles County in a medical freedom strike

The Federal Court supports the delegation of Los Angeles Provincial Visks in Los Angeles in medical freedom freedom

The Federal Appeal Court has supported the state of Los and Kovid 19 to employees, and rejected a lawsuit that argued that it had violated the constitutional rights. The court cited federal health directives, despite the subsequent evidence that vaccines did not prevent transmission.

Filed a lawsuit against employees and the Defense Freedom Fund, claiming that the state is unconstitutional. More than 1,000 employees have been their jobs to reject the vaccine, but the court ruled reasonablely acted on the instructions of the Center for Disease Control.

The court relied on the Jacobson case against Massachusetts (1905), which supported vaccine delegations, but critics have argued that it was a defective comparison since the smallpox vaccine stopped moving-unlike Covid-19 shots. Judges opposed to the uninterrupted governmental authority.

Prosecutors may appeal the Supreme Court, although success is inconceivable. The ruling determines a disturbing precedent, which allows the states based on disputed or variable sciences, which raises concerns about eroded medical freedoms.

The issue highlights tensions between the Public Health and Individual Rights Authority. Critics warn that the decision enables governments to enforce the mandate without scientific certainty, and threaten physical and approval.

In a controversial decision that critics say it is undermining personal freedom, a federal appeal court last week A lawsuit challenged the unified state of Los Angeles in the Wuhan Coronverus Virus (Covid-19) for employees..

The court ruled that the boycott was justified in enforcing the mandate based on the federal health guidance, even if the vaccines did not prevent the transmission of the virus. The decision was made by the Complete Judges Committee from the American Court of Appeal for the ninth district.

The previous ruling, which stood with the employees who argued in the state, abolished their constitutional rights. The case now raises critical questions about the government, medical independence, and the legal race for public health delegations in the future. (Related to: Breaking: Los Angeles School area cancels the Covid-19 vaccine))

The lawsuit was filed in 2021 by the HFDF and a group of LaUSD employees under the banner of teachers in California for medical freedom. They argued that Forcing school staff to take a Covid-19 vaccine A non -constitutional medical mandate reached.

More than 1,000 employees have been their jobs to reject the shot. Prosecutors sought to announce the authorization of illegal compensation and asked for legal fees and damage.

But the ninth circle opposed, a decision that Lusid is reasonably spent by relying on guidance from Disease control and prevention centers (CDC), which claimed at the time that the vaccines helped reduce the spread of the virus.

The majority of the majority of Jacobson against Massachusetts bend the case of the Supreme Court in 1905, which supported the smallpox vaccine. The judges argued that as long as the educational area believed that the state served public health, it was among its rights to implement it – regardless of whether the science had proven later otherwise.

This logic raises the concern of opposition judges, who warned that the ruling gives government agencies authority without deterrence to impose medical states based on defective or variable information.

The exhibitions stated: “The majority of the majority is closely approaching from giving the government selective Blanche to request a vaccine or even a medical treatment against the will of people.” “The believer’s commitment to the precedent of the Supreme Court confirms that we should not blindly accept just saying from the government.”

Compary: The court uses controversial thinking in an undesirable complaint

Critics argue that Jacobson is a bad comparison. It has been proven that the smallpox vaccine in this case stops sending – Unlike Covid-19 vaccinesWhich was subsequently recognized by the Disease Control Center for a limited effect on the spread.

Prosecutors also indicated that the Center for Disease Control, quietly changed its definition of a “vaccine” in 2021Removing the requirements that it provides immunity to the disease.

Lawyer Scott Street, who represents the employees, called on the court’s “shallow” analysis and accused the judges of ignoring contracts of constitutional protection against forced medical interventions.

Leslie Manokian, President of HFDF, said that the prosecutors are considering the appeal of the US Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the ruling places a disturbing precedent for future health policies. If governments are able to delegate medical treatments based on preliminary claims or later, critics warn that individual rights can be eroded in the name of emergency measures.

Judge John Owens and Judge Kenneth Lee, who partially opposed, He wrote about concerns related to the constitutional race. They argued that by not examining the effectiveness of the vaccine at the weight of the legitimacy of the medical authorization, it endangers the freedom of patients.

The issue highlights the increasing tension between the Public Health and Personal Freedom Authority. While Lausd canceled its mandate in 2023, the legal battle leaves it opens the possibility that similar policies return in future health crises – with guidance to government assurances rather than scientific certainty.

While the ruling is a victory for public health officials, it deals with a serious blow Those who believe that medical decisions should remain between individuals and their doctors. Manoukian also warned: “This ruling should frighten every American.”

Watch this video about More than 100 patrol employees in Washington state are separated to reject the Covid-19 vaccine.

This video from TKWK TV on Brighton.com.