Please excuse the long post, but I want to share a few highlights from quickly looking through both the NSHE (Nevada System of Higher Education) arguments and the Right to Refuse Memorandum of Law posted here on GAW a few hours ago:
NSHE:
They are trying to argue that, due to DOJ opinion, they only need to inform employees and students of their right to accept or refuse injection, not that they can't mandate them. This is asinine, but they're actually considering this as their legal argument. They do not mention, as far as I can find, the legal right to refuse as allowed in Nevada due to Religious or Medical reasons.
From what I can gather, they argue that EUA-status doesn't matter, because of the DOJ opinion. I would hate to assume, but I suspect their legal defense against any EUA defense will lean toward this ridiculous argument.
Right to Refuse:
This lists legal defenses most of which surround EUA and what the law can and cannot reasonably do under those EUA guidelines. NSHE is trying to undermine that with the DOJ opinion defense. As though, somehow, informing people about their right to refuse is somehow different then allowing them to actually refuse. Baffling.
The one area I can find something immediately useful against such vile misinterpretation of the law is Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970, which states that an employee who refuses vaccination because of a reasonable belief that he or she has a medical condition that creates a real danger of serious illness or death may be protected (from retaliation). I can do that -- and I think many of us can. This defense isn't perfect, though.
Finally: What I've found is just a start, but I hope others have a chance to review their own State's System of Education for this kind of crazy, medical overreach. Have you formed a legal defense? If so, what did you use? How did you peel away their defense? What verbage worked best?
Please excuse the long post, but I want to share a few highlights from quickly looking through both the NSHE (Nevada System of Higher Education) arguments and the Right to Refuse Memorandum of Law posted here on GAW a few hours ago:
NSHE: They are trying to argue that, due to DOJ opinion, they only need to inform employees and students of their right to accept or refuse injection, not that they can't mandate them. This is asinine, but they're actually considering this as their legal argument. They do not mention, as far as I can find, the legal right to refuse as allowed in Nevada due to Religious or Medical reasons.
From what I can gather, they argue that EUA-status doesn't matter, because of the DOJ opinion. I would hate to assume, but I suspect their legal defense against any EUA defense will lean toward this ridiculous argument.
Right to Refuse: This lists legal defenses most of which surround EUA and what the law can and cannot reasonably do under those EUA guidelines. NSHE is trying to undermine that with the DOJ opinion defense. As though, somehow, informing people about their right to refuse is somehow different then allowing them to actually refuse. Baffling.
The one area I can find something immediately useful against such vile misinterpretation of the law is Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970, which states that an employee who refuses vaccination because of a reasonable belief that he or she has a medical condition that creates a real danger of serious illness or death may be protected (from retaliation). I can do that -- and I think many of us can. This defense isn't perfect, though.
Finally: What I've found is just a start, but I hope others have a chance to review their own State's System of Education for this kind of crazy, medical overreach. Have you formed a legal defense? If so, what did you use? How did you peel away their defense? What verbage worked best?