Posted on Jul 17, 2022
Our Woke Military: Trans Rights over Religious Liberty
736
15
12
3
3
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
I'm curious about this quote,
"Then there is the unlawful required administration of vaccines authorized under an emergency use authorization (EUA), since the officially “licensed” vaccines remain unavailable. What makes that unlawful? The President must authorize the administration of EUA vaccines to the military – and he hasn’t."
As far as I know, the COVID vaccine was only mandated for service personnel until after it was FDA approved. In what cases are EUA vaccines being used? I'm not saying this hasn't happened but I don't know about it.
"Then there is the unlawful required administration of vaccines authorized under an emergency use authorization (EUA), since the officially “licensed” vaccines remain unavailable. What makes that unlawful? The President must authorize the administration of EUA vaccines to the military – and he hasn’t."
As far as I know, the COVID vaccine was only mandated for service personnel until after it was FDA approved. In what cases are EUA vaccines being used? I'm not saying this hasn't happened but I don't know about it.
(4)
(0)
CWO4 Terrence Clark
Well, let's see what the FDAs position is. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines
The FDA has regulatory processes in place to facilitate the development of COVID-19 vaccines that meet the FDA's rigorous scientific standards.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
The vaccine wasn't mandatory for the military until it had received BLA licensure. However, prior to that many companies had made it mandatory for employment. That's why many nurses, doctors, contractors, etc were in the news for taking challenges to the mandates all the way to the supreme court. The determination was that, even though the vaccines were EUA, due to the hospitals receiving federal funds they can indeed mandate the vaccines. Especially as they were places that would put one in the most direct threat of contracting COVID-19 and then taking it out to the public. The reason the people took the hospitals and other companies (college students also challenged colleges and universities) is due to the federal laws/statutes that allow for all persons to say no to an EUA product as they are considered experimental and not entirely safe. A lot of people are still upset at the mandating of EUA products against their will and making it a stipulation for obtaining employment or continuing employment.
(0)
(0)
What academic of crap. All if those requests for exemptions were political hiding behind a lie about their religous freedom.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Do you have evidence that all of the requests are individuals who acted politically and not in the best interest of their sincerely held religious beliefs and a genuine desire to exercise their religious freedom rights? I believe that some people did abuse the opportunity that the system provided for them, the vast majority do not fall into this category. It's never in anyone's interest to lump every person in a group into a category, be it positive or negative. It detracts from your argument and causes people to automatically discredit your opinions, even if they have any amount of truth to them.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) Their continued presence in the military. They took shots to come in and on a regular basis. Deployment overseas could mean more vaccinations. So yea it was simply political. Plain and simple.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see)
Have you never learned something new that changed your mind about something you’ve done most of your life? Are people not allowed to educate themselves and make an educated decision based on their own research? I’d be curious how much you know about what exactly is in each and every shot they give us in the military. And then how much you know what’s in these new shots. Did you look into the background of the new shots? The history behind their research and creation? Or their testing history? Perhaps you believe we should just blindly stick anything and everything in our bodies without question or conducting our own research and formulating an opinion based on that research and then making an informed decision based on what we’ve read, seen, and learned from discussions with others in various fields. To believe a person shouldn’t question these things and isn’t allowed to change their mind or even make a decision for themselves that goes against mainstream thought is a flaw in and of itself. That’s really the entire premise to one’s Christian faith. We have lived one way that was in error and learned a new way to live, to do things, to behave and then a radical change is made. Perhaps that too should be outlawed/banned? While that does fall under the slippery slope logical fallacy, it is the natural direction of this thought. If we won’t allow others to think freely and change their minds about something as simple as what they put in their bodies then eventually it will get to not allowing people to make changes in their lives about faith and lifestyle.
Have you never learned something new that changed your mind about something you’ve done most of your life? Are people not allowed to educate themselves and make an educated decision based on their own research? I’d be curious how much you know about what exactly is in each and every shot they give us in the military. And then how much you know what’s in these new shots. Did you look into the background of the new shots? The history behind their research and creation? Or their testing history? Perhaps you believe we should just blindly stick anything and everything in our bodies without question or conducting our own research and formulating an opinion based on that research and then making an informed decision based on what we’ve read, seen, and learned from discussions with others in various fields. To believe a person shouldn’t question these things and isn’t allowed to change their mind or even make a decision for themselves that goes against mainstream thought is a flaw in and of itself. That’s really the entire premise to one’s Christian faith. We have lived one way that was in error and learned a new way to live, to do things, to behave and then a radical change is made. Perhaps that too should be outlawed/banned? While that does fall under the slippery slope logical fallacy, it is the natural direction of this thought. If we won’t allow others to think freely and change their minds about something as simple as what they put in their bodies then eventually it will get to not allowing people to make changes in their lives about faith and lifestyle.
(0)
(0)
This writer is an attorney, not a scientist, and it is telling. Whether or not someone on active duty can •refuse• a vaccine is a legal matter. The •efficacy• of the vaccines in adults is not questionable. The author is mistaken when saying "natural" immunity is better than the immunity reached via vaccinations. According to public information available on the Centers for Disease Control website (cdc.gov) under the "Myths and Facts" section dated June 19, 2022, people who caught covid and recovered from it are 2 times MORE likely to catch covid again than 1) people who caught covid, recovered, and were vaccinated and 2) people who did not catch covid and were vaccinated. Whether or not someone "wants" the vaccine/s; whether or not vaccines violate someone's religious beliefs, the vaccines WORK. Saying otherwise causes me to question the author's credibility on any other statement. Right-Wing fear mongering is real. It causes panic and disorder and death...
(3)
(0)
Read This Next