I've been doing research on EO 14043 for Federal Employees. It's flat-out illegal, as it violates current Federal Law. Read this:
"EUA products are by definition experimental and thus require the right to refuse. Under the Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.” A federal court held that the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines to soldiers. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (2003). The court held: "...the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs." Id. at 135. No court has ever upheld a mandate for an EUA vaccine."
Now read the EO:
"(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations."
I've been doing research on EO 14043 for Federal Employees. It's flat-out illegal, as it violates current Federal Law. Read this:
"EUA products are by definition experimental and thus require the right to refuse. Under the Nuremberg Code, the foundation of ethical medicine, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.” A federal court held that the U.S. military could not mandate EUA vaccines to soldiers. Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (2003). The court held: "...the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs." Id. at 135. No court has ever upheld a mandate for an EUA vaccine."
Now read the EO:
"(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations."
(d) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of any of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.