USA: Just days before millions of American children returned to school for the fall term, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) surprised the country by reversing course and finally recognizing the right of all individuals to make their own health decisions – at least for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). Because of this, say lawyers, those suing for damages over the mandates now have an even stronger case against the government and every institution that engaged in medical tyranny.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) says it fully expects that defendants in natural immunity challenges will try to argue that such lawsuits are now moot because of the CDC’s backtracking. But according to attorney Jenin Younes, those cases are still fully valid, no matter the CDC shenanigan of the day.
“… because we argued that their constitutional rights were already violated, and we are seeking recognition of that going forward, the courts should not dismiss the appeals (or cases still pending in lower courts) on mootness grounds,” Younes wrote in an email.
At least four separate NCLA cases are potentially affected by the CDC’s policy reversals, including one against Michigan State University‘s employee mandate, another against Rhode Island’s healthcare worker mandate, and a number of class-action suits against federal employees and federal contractors.
Every American negatively affected by covid mandates needs to sue the CDC
Attorney Michael Senger is outraged over the CDC’s about-face, seeing as how millions of workers, students, and others lost their jobs, were told they could not receive an education, or were forced to take unwanted jobs while facing exclusion “from everyday life activities and basic medical care,” all because of “a differentiation that the CDC now admits does not make sense.”
Senger was involved with a now-dismissed Big Tech case that is seeking to be reinstated.
There are other cases as well within the military, for instance, which is not changing its jab mandate requirements despite the changes made to the CDC guidance.
Attorney R. Davis Younts, who successfully represented a Navy lieutenant in a mandate challenge from back in the spring, says the military “absolutely should” change its policy “because the whole justification for denying religious accommodation [requests] is that there’s no safe alternative to the vaccine.”
Now that the CDC has admitted that the shots are medically useless, Younts hopes that military servicemen resisting them will resubmit their RARs based on the fact that the CDC’s position on the matter has changed.
“It seems like every day the FDA or the CDC or some report continues to confirm what we’ve been saying: that there’s no reason for these shots,” says Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver.
Liberty Counsel is actively challenging the jab requirement in the armed forces, and Staver has promised to provide updates about the “various different courts we’re in.”
“I think this is another mile marker in the long march of incompetence from Washington bureaucrats that claims to follow ‘science’ yet this science has been out for well over a year and has been ignored by the CDC and the corporations that are clearly state actors,” added U.S. Freedom Flyers co-founder Joshua Yoder, whose group challenged jab mandates for pilots.
Yoder says that regardless of what the CDC is saying now, its prior mandates caused “unimaginable, unquantifiable damage” to people’s lives. And simply changing the narrative now “will not exempt them from accountability,” he says.
Meanwhile, both adults and children alike who were forced to take the jabs are now suffering from heart inflammation and other health damage that is more than likely permanent.
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post