Mandates and Treatments in Court At A Glance:

  • Two separate US District Courts halted the Biden vaccine mandates tied to Medicare and Medicaid.
  • US District Court judge ruled in favor of three states to halt federal contractor vaccine mandate.
  • Judge rules hospital must “step aside” so dying man can receive ivermectin.
  • Within days, man goes from ventilator to full recovery with ivermectin.

This week has been an eventful one for the Biden mandates. And, for many people an exciting one as three separate courts have ruled to put a hold on the mandates that would impose vaccinations on American healthcare workers and federal contractors.

Win in Court for Healthcare Workers

On Monday, a federal judge in Missouri ruled in favor of a coalition of 10 states: Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The request was to halt the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers that was imposed by Biden on November 5 for all facilities that receive Medicaid/Medicare monies.1

The following day, Tuesday, November 30, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled to cover the remaining 40 states. These two US District Court decisions put a halt on the January 4th deadline and implementation while the courts continue to assess the cases.2

As expected, the Biden administration sought to appeal both the Missouri and Louisiana rulings.2

Federal Contractors Also Granted a Halt

On Tuesday, a US District Court judge in Kentucky ruled in favor of three states that sought a halt on the vaccine mandates for federal contractors and subcontractors. The win went to Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. The judge’s opinion stated:

  • The president exceeded his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), 40 U.S.C. §§ 101–126, a statute designed to provide the federal government with “an economical and efficient system” for procurement. While FPASA has been used (some would say stretched) to impose a variety of requirements of government contractors, the court concluded that the president likely exceeded his delegated authority under the statute, noting, “While the statute grants to the president great discretion, it strains credulity that Congress intended the FPASA, a procurement statute, to be the basis for promulgating a public health measure such as mandatory vaccination.” The court also pointed out that FPASA had never before been used to enact “such a wide and sweeping public health regulation.”
  • The Executive Order likely violates the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 3301–3312. The court determined that the Executive Order could preclude “full and open competition” – a requirement for federal procurement mandated by CICA – by effectively excluding an offeror that chooses not to follow the vaccine mandate, but otherwise represents the best value to the government, from award.
  • The Executive Order likely violates the nondelegation doctrine, a principle of constitutional law that bars Congress from delegating legislative power to the president “to exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed or advisable.” Kentucky et al. v. Biden et al., No. 3:21-cv-00055-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2021) (quoting A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 537–38 (1935)). The court, referencing FPASA, and its purpose of promoting economy and efficiency in procurement, found that the government could not “point to a single instance when the statute has been used to promulgate such a wide and sweeping public health regulation as mandatory vaccination for all federal contractors and subcontractors.”
  • The Executive Order likely violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it intrudes on an area traditionally reserved to the states – the regulation of health and safety matters.3

Interesting to note is that this is the court that will be ruling on the validity of the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard as well.3

Vaccine Mandates Aren’t Alone in COVID Court Cases

Recently a grandfather from Hong Kong, Sun Ng, came to Chicago to celebrate his granddaughter’s first birthday. He became infected with COVID while he was visiting, was admitted to the hospital and became critically ill. At one point a nurse told his daughter:

“…stop all this aggressive care and let [her father] die naturally.”4

Ng’s daughter refused to give up and found a doctor willing to treat the man with ivermectin, even while he was on a ventilator. The hospital refused stating it was against their policy to use ivermectin:

  • There could be side effects.
  • Ordering ivermectin would violate its policies.
  • Forcing the issue would be “extraordinary” judicial overreach.4

The judge read ivermectin’s possible side effects from a government website:

“(N)umber one, generally well tolerated; number two, dizziness; number three, pruritus; number four, nausea/diarrhea. These are the side effects for the dosage that’s being asked to be administered,” he said.4

He continued:

“The risks of these side effects are so minimal that Mr. Ng’s current situation outweighs that risk by one-hundredfold.”4

In the end, the judge settled the matter when he asked one simple question. Why? If the man is dying, what is the real risk of ivermectin? The hospital was forced to step aside and let the treating doctor administer the ivermectin.

Ng showed improvement nearly immediately. He was released from the hospital on November 27 and is now fully recovered at home.5

The attorney’s who helped in Ng’s case have been approached more than 50 times since September by others seeking to ivermectin for their loved ones.4

Hold the Phone — Doc’s Thoughts:

You’ve gotta ask yourself…if this is about health, why are they so persistent to follow this through the courts and reappeal? What is really at stake here? With over half of the states fighting the mandates, why do they keep pushing?

If it’s really about health, why does a family have to go to court to get a prescription for a drug that’s been used for decades with no mention of adverse reactions before COVID? This drug won a Nobel Prize and is on the WHO’s list of medicine’s countries should have on hand at all times.

Since when is the court system part of the healthcare system? And why is a generally safe drug against a hospital policy? Why do we need a court to protect employees from their employers? And why is the White House refusing taxpayer money to take care of taxpayers if other working taxpayers don’t take a vaccine?

These questions will likely lead to more questions. They aren’t easy to answer, but they need to be asked. Informed consent and healthcare freedoms are at stake. When courts are involved, telling people which life saving medicines they can’t have access to, and which vaccines with nearly a million adverse reports they must take…I’ve gotta say, it all seems more and more crazy each day. So far, they’ve gotten it right. But we must certainly let them know we are watching. We need to help them to know what the American people want and that we won’t stand by and let our constitution be railroaded.