General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFederal Court:Anti-Vaxxers Do Not Have a Constitutional or Statutory Right to Endanger Everyone Else
Today we discuss a putative class action in which the named plaintiffs are a registered nurse who refuses to take a basic precaution to protect her vulnerable patients and a mother who is more interested in displaying her livestock than protecting her neighbors. Brought on behalf of all New Mexico residents who are equally selfish, the plaintiffs sought an injunction barring the state from enforcing a public health order that requires (with limited exceptions) all hospital, nursing-home, assisted-living-facility, adult-day-care, rehabilitation-facility, and prison workers, all employees of the governors office, and all who would enter the New Mexico State Fair grounds to be vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19. The plaintiffs asserted various constitutional and statutory claims. In a thorough and trenchant decision, Valdez v. Grisham, F. Supp. 3d -, 2021 WL 4145746 (D.N.M. 2021), a federal district court rejected them all. That is consistent with long-standing precedent and other recent decisionsas we discussed here, here, and here.
The plaintiffs first claim was that requiring them to be vaccinated with experimental vaccines violated the FDCA. The claim was predicated on the fact that, at the time suit was filed, the three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines available in the United Statesthe Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccineshad not received full FDA approval and were instead being distributed and administered under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). The plaintiffs claimed that requiring them to be vaccinated violated the terms of the vaccines EUAs, which require that those receiving each vaccine be informed of its benefits and risks and of the option to accept or refuse its administration. 2021 WL 4145746, at *4.
The court rejected the plaintiffs FDCA claim.
Implicitly responding to the plaintiffs assertion that the vaccines were experimental, the court recited at the outset both the extensive testing that each had undergone before the EUAs were granted, including at least one well-designed Phase 3 clinical trial that demonstrate[d] the vaccines safety and efficacy in a clear and compelling manner, and the fact that [c]omprehensive data collected since the three vaccines received EUA status demonstrates that they are safe and highly effective in preventing infection and severe illness, and that serious adverse side effects from the vaccines are exceedingly rare. 2021 WL 4145746, at *1. The court further observed that, despite Plaintiffs protestation to the contrary, the FDA has now given its full approvalnot just emergency use authorizationto the Pfizer vaccine for administration to those 16 and older. Id. at *4. That did not moot the plaintiffs statutory claim, however, because the livestock-display-over-human-health plaintiff asserted the claim on behalf of not only herself but also her 11- and 12-year-old children, who were also keen to show[] their animals at the state fair. Id. at *2.
Snip
https://www.druganddevicelawblog.com/2021/09/federal-court-anti-vaxxers-do-not-have-a-constitutional-or-statutory-right-to-endanger-everyone-else.html
Wounded Bear
(58,441 posts)Skittles
(152,967 posts)yes INDEED
ChoppinBroccoli
(3,764 posts)I have the FREEDOM to swing my arms around, but my freedom to swing my arms ends where your nose begins.
Get it through your dense melons, anti-vaxxers. You DON'T have a right to spread a deadly disease just because you want to. Besides, refusing to do something that benefits society as a whole just because you "don't wanna, and you can't make me," in addition to making you sound like a TODDLER, just makes you a shit person in general.