I think that your statement that the "court *determines* that COVID vaccines aren't vaccines" [emphasis my own], per HFDFs rather loosely worded announcement, is not precisely what happened. My understanding of what happened is that, previously, the District Court had dismissed HFDF's case in agreement with LAU…
I think that your statement that the "court *determines* that COVID vaccines aren't vaccines" [emphasis my own], per HFDFs rather loosely worded announcement, is not precisely what happened. My understanding of what happened is that, previously, the District Court had dismissed HFDF's case in agreement with LAUSD's defense that Jacobson v. Massachusetts states that the government has a right to insist on that citizens get vaccinated. What HFDF succeeded in doing upon appeal was to persuade the judges that a closer reading of JvM shows that the state's interest is limited to stopping the spread of a disease. They also showed that LAUSD had provided no evidence to show that the jabs stopped transmission. The Court ruling states that the District Court erred in its understanding of JvM as per where the state's interest in lies - that is, they agreed with HFDF that JvM does not give any state a blanket right to force vaccinations, but does demand efficacy. They therefore stated that HFDF's allegation that the jabs are a medical treatment, not a vaccination per JvM was based on a reasonable viewpoint. The Appellate Court thereby vacated the District Court's dismissal of the HFDF's case and said that the trail should continue. This is not a ruling stating that the jabs are not vaccines, but that HFDF's viewpoint is a reasonable one and dismissal unwarranted.
So, this ball is still very much in play, though the Court's ruling is a wonderful first step.
And, I apologize for the long post. I come from a long line of people who engage in legal argumentation for sport. Hugs and love!
Do not apologize!!! I'm a big girl and can handle being wrong. Appreciate the comment (and your note that the ruling is a wonderful first step, phew!). :)
You know I love you, Jenna!
I think that your statement that the "court *determines* that COVID vaccines aren't vaccines" [emphasis my own], per HFDFs rather loosely worded announcement, is not precisely what happened. My understanding of what happened is that, previously, the District Court had dismissed HFDF's case in agreement with LAUSD's defense that Jacobson v. Massachusetts states that the government has a right to insist on that citizens get vaccinated. What HFDF succeeded in doing upon appeal was to persuade the judges that a closer reading of JvM shows that the state's interest is limited to stopping the spread of a disease. They also showed that LAUSD had provided no evidence to show that the jabs stopped transmission. The Court ruling states that the District Court erred in its understanding of JvM as per where the state's interest in lies - that is, they agreed with HFDF that JvM does not give any state a blanket right to force vaccinations, but does demand efficacy. They therefore stated that HFDF's allegation that the jabs are a medical treatment, not a vaccination per JvM was based on a reasonable viewpoint. The Appellate Court thereby vacated the District Court's dismissal of the HFDF's case and said that the trail should continue. This is not a ruling stating that the jabs are not vaccines, but that HFDF's viewpoint is a reasonable one and dismissal unwarranted.
So, this ball is still very much in play, though the Court's ruling is a wonderful first step.
And, I apologize for the long post. I come from a long line of people who engage in legal argumentation for sport. Hugs and love!
Do not apologize!!! I'm a big girl and can handle being wrong. Appreciate the comment (and your note that the ruling is a wonderful first step, phew!). :)