Now in this Winter of Covid discontent, made inglorious by the silliness and selfishness of anti-vaxxers, we warm ourselves with a look back at how a court dismantled the absurd arguments challenging vaccine mandates. Sure, we have written about similar cases a lot lately – here for example. “Yet once more, O ye laurels, and
Recently, when we have spoken of vaccine litigation, it has mostly been about challenges to public health policies requiring vaccination against COVID-19 for healthcare workers, students at public universities, etc. We have been pleased to report that these challenges have been failing without lingering too long at the trial court level, like here, here
We told you that if anti-vaxxers found a sympathetic court in their quest to declare government vaccine mandates unconstitutional, we would let you know. Well, we did not think it would be so soon. And we surely did not think that the sympathetic court would be the United States Supreme Court.
Don’t get the wrong
Maybe we’ll keep writing about Covid-19 cases as long as there is Covid-19. That’s a depressing thought. It is depressing because Covid-19 continues to harm so many lives, both in terms of destruction and diminution. It is also depressing because so many legal challenges to Covid-19 regulations are frivolous. You might even say those challenges
California is called the land of fruits and nuts, but the Harry and David Company – esteemed purveyor of fruits, nuts, and other delicacies – calls Oregon its home. Oregon gave us Tonya Harding and Ndamukong Suh. Oregon is also the only state besides New Jersey that forbids motorists from pumping their own gas.
We
We observed in a recent post that the constitutionality of government vaccine requirements really should not be controversial, and after reporting recently on yet another case upholding such requirements, we expressed our hope that we would not be writing much further on them.
Well, here we are, writing again on government vaccine requirements—as we did
We have tried to be pretty balanced in addressing a number of decisions over the last few months relating to lawsuits brought by the euphemistically labeled “vaccine hesitant” and their brethren who advocate aggressively for entitlement to “alternative” medical treatments like anti-parasitic (veterinary) drugs. We have been restrained in treating these lawsuits as having been
Today we discuss a putative class action in which the named plaintiffs are a registered nurse who refuses to take a basic precaution to protect her vulnerable patients and a mother who is more interested in displaying her livestock than protecting her neighbors. Brought on behalf of all New Mexico residents who are equally selfish,
When we first wrote on public universities requiring COVID-19 vaccines, we wondered why there was any controversy. The government has been requiring vaccines in public schools for decades, and the constitutionality of government vaccine requirements has been settled for more than 100 years. Courts have agreed—including the Seventh Circuit, as we reported here.
But
We reported two weeks ago on the poorly conceived and ill-fated attempt by students to enjoin a public university from mandating COVID-19 vaccines. There simply is no fundamental right under the Constitution to refuse vaccination, which has been firmly established for more than 100 years. Now the Seventh Circuit has agreed.
Let’s be candid about