An unnamed servicemember of the United States military has been granted approval to remain unvaccinated for Wuhanthe coronavirus (Covid-19) under a religious exemption.
The first victory of its kind, the female Air Force officer was given the green light to protect her immune system from covid injection destruction by U.S. District Judge Tillman E. Self III in Georgia, who ruled that the Air Force infringed on the officer’s First Amendment rights when its internal review process rejected her initial filing.
Last year, the officer successfully completed a religion-based waiver for the shot only to have it get immediately rejected. She followed up with an appeal. (Related: Injuries and deaths are soaring in the military due to covid jab mandates.)
Self described the Air Force’s procedure to accept only a very low number of religion-based Fauci Flu shot exemptions as “illusory and insincere,” setting a precedent for other military servicemembers who are facing similar discrimination.
The officer argued in her lawsuit that she cannot get injected for the Wuhan Flu due to her Christian faith, which prohibits the murder of unborn babies. Fauci Flu shots, after all, contain ingredients derived from aborted human fetal tissue, and this is a “grave evil.”
The suit also contained details about how the officer already has “natural immunity” against the China Flu after having tested “positive” for it back in 2020. The officer later got an antibodies test done that showed she still had some in her system.
The officer also agreed to “take regular [coronavirus] tests when working in-person on the base, wear a mask, socially distance and work remotely as appropriate.”
The Air Force just granted more than 3,000 exemptions from covid shots for medical or nonreligious reasons
Self’s decision came just over a week after more than 3,000 servicemember in the Air Force were granted exemptions from the shots for medical or nonreligious reasons, which is a first for the military branch.
“It seems illogical to think, let alone argue, that plaintiff’s religious-based refusal to take a [coronavirus] vaccine would ‘seriously impede’ military function when the Air Force has at least 3,300 other service members still on duty who are just as unvaccinated as her,” Self’s order reads.
“The only difference is that plaintiff is unvaccinated because she followed her religion and the others were granted either a medical or administrative exemption from receiving a [coronavirus] vaccine.”
It turns out that Self is a four-year Army veteran himself who does not approve of the way that the Air Force, in this case, is treating servicemembers who seek an exemption for religious reasons.
“With such a marked record disfavoring religious accommodation requests, the court easily finds that the Air Force’s process to protect religious rights is both illusory and insincere,” he further wrote. “In short, it’s just theater.”
The lawsuit was filed on January 6 on behalf of the officer from Robins Air Force base in Macon, Ga. At that time, the military branch had not yet allowed any religion-based exemptions. It was not until February 8 that the branch approved its first nine cases.
According to internal military data, the Air Force has rejected 3,665 religion-based requests thus far and is still considering 3,2888 others. In a statement, the Air Force revealed that it has discharged 142 active-duty servicemembers for refusing to take the shots.
“The Department of the Air Force is aware of the preliminary injunction and will abide by the court’s order until the matter is legally resolved,” announced Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek following Self’s decision. “The Air Force has no other comments about this ongoing litigation.”
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