In a preliminary setback for Americans who believe they – and they alone – should choose whether to be vaccinated against COVID-19, a federal judge on Saturday dismissed a lawsuit filed by employees of a Texas hospital who were required to accept the shots or lose their jobs, as the Washington Examiner reports.
Federal District Judge Lynn Hughes opined in his ruling that the argument advanced by the plaintiffs, namely that the currently available coronavirus vaccines are “experimental and dangerous,” is “false” as well as “irrelevant,” given that hospital employees remain free to decline the shots, but will simply need to find work elsewhere if they do.
That finding was in response to the claim of lead plaintiff Jennifer Bridges – a nurse at Houston Methodist Hospital – that if she were fired due to vaccine refusal, the move would amount to wrongful termination. Hughes disagreed, stating that “Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” as Reuters noted.
Back in March, executives at Methodist Hospital communicated a new policy requiring all staff to receive COVID-19 vaccinations by June 7, or they would be subject to termination of their employment. Roughly 99% of those affected did comply with the mandate, though nearly 180 employees had been suspended without pay for declining the shots, as the Examiner noted.
Judge Hughes was not moved by the arguments made by the 117 hospital employees who lent their names to the legal action, writing in his opinion that “Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients and their families safer.”
Hughes also took issue with the contention that requiring the acceptance of vaccines that have only received emergency use authorization is akin to experiments performed during the Holocaust, saying, “Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible. Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death,” as CBS News noted.
In heartening news for those who remain opposed to compulsory medical interventions, however, conservative lawyer and activist Jared Woodfill stated that Hughes’ ruling was just “the first battle in a long fight,” adding that “there are going to be many battles fought. Not just in this courtroom, but in courtrooms all across the state. There are battles that are going to be fought in the higher courts, the 5th Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court, even the United States Supreme Court.”
Bridges, for her part, was steadfast in her commitment to the cause, telling Houston CBS affiliate station KHOU, “We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court. This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”
Amid growing concerns about possible links between COVID-19 shots and heart inflammation in young people – such that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be convening an emergency meeting this week to discuss the topic – it is more important than ever for Americans to fight back against the push to force universal vaccination and to resist this new brand of medical authoritarianism.