3 ms·
I vouched for OP - it is a factual description of a relevant current event that is pertinent to civil liberties. IMO the presented argument is valid and well s
by criticaltinker 5y ago
I vouched for OP - it is a factual description of a relevant current event that is pertinent to civil liberties.
IMO the presented argument is valid and well supported scientifically and legally. It will be very interesting to see if this sets any precedent for other institutions.
> GMU and other universities must stop ignoring science and cease forcing mandatory vaccines on even those with naturally acquired immunity
> Strangely, despite solid scientific evidence, GMU continues to refuse to recognize that Covid-19 vaccination is medically unnecessary for ALL students, faculty, and staff with naturally acquired immunity demonstrated with antibody testing.
> NCLA filed Professor Zywicki’s complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia on August 3, 2021, challenging GMU’s “reopening policy.”
> The policy, announced June 28, requires all faculty and staff members, including those who can demonstrate natural immunity through recovery from a prior Covid-19 infection, to disclose their vaccination status as “a prerequisite for eligibility for any merit pay increases,” unless they obtain a religious or medical exemption.
> On July 22, GMU emailed the policy to students and employees and threatened disciplinary action—including termination of employment—against any who do not comply with the vaccine mandate.
> Prof. Zywicki’s immunologist, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, has advised him that, based on his personal health and immunity status, it is medically unnecessary to get a Covid-19 vaccine—and that it violates medical ethics to order unnecessary procedures.
> As a result of the exemption it granted, GMU is permitting Prof. Zywicki to remain unvaccinated for medical reasons.
> "Nevertheless, NCLA remains dismayed by GMU’s refusal — along with many other public and private universities and other employers — to recognize that the science establishes beyond any doubt that natural immunity is as robust or more so than vaccine immunity.”
- thurn 5y agoI'm not precisely sure this where the article's text contains a well-supported legal argument about why the mandate is unconstitutional -- in fact I don't believe there's any discussion at all of the relevant statutes & case law? A link to the decision itself would probably provide more of that information.
- inter_netuser 5y agoseems the university simply granted a medical exemption, and was not ordered by the court to do so? GMU maintained their policy that everyone must be vaccinated regardless of their antibody status. Seems really strange.
- criticaltinker 5y agoHere is the official document that was filed for the civil lawsuit [1], it cites a tremendous amount of case law and statutes. > the Policy is unmistakably coercive and cannot reasonably be considered anything other than an unlawful mandate. And even if the Policy is not deemed coercive, it still represents an unconstitutional condition being applied to Professor Zywicki’s constitutional rights to bodily integrity and informed medical choice, respectively. > GMU’s Policy infringes upon Professor Zywicki’s rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution > In sum, the Policy violates both Professor Zywicki’s constitutional and federal statutory rights Not sure what the downvotes are for folks, I'm just the messenger - leave a comment if you don't like what you're seeing here so we can at least discuss it. [1] https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Zywicki-Complaint-All-Attachments.pdf https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Zywicki-Com...