Tag: body integrity

Idaho’s Landmark Medical Freedom Act Survives First Legal Challenge

A federal judge has upheld Idaho’s new medical freedom law, ruling that daycares cannot require children to receive vaccines or other medical interventions as a condition of attendance.

Chief U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford last week dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Boise-area daycare and three parents who challenged the Idaho Medical Freedom Act. The act, signed into law in April, prohibits most medical mandates, including vaccines.

Brailsford rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates parents’ rights or infringes on the daycare’s First Amendment rights.

Leslie Manookian, president of the Health Freedom Defense Fund and author of the law, said the ruling confirmed what she intended the law to do.

“Medical freedom, the right to make one’s own medical choices, is such a sacred and basic human right it astounds me that anyone could see otherwise,” Manookian told The Defender.

She said the law “protects an individual from public and private actors bullying, coercing and intruding into their personal and private medical choices or punishing them for their choices.”

Manookian also said she was “delighted that the federal court interpreted the law … as a safeguard against overreach” by government and private actors, including daycares.

‘A daycare does not’ make medical decisions

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, whose office defended the law, said the ruling confirms that parents — not businesses — are in charge of their children’s health.

“Parents make medical decisions for their children. A daycare does not,” Labrador said in a Sept. 22 statement. “The Legislature protected that choice in the Medical Freedom Act, and the court upheld it.”

Labrador added that daycares can continue telling parents what they believe about vaccines and health, but “they cannot turn a child away because of a parent’s medical decision.”

The attorneys representing Le Soleil Child Care LLC and the parents said they may appeal.

“Our clients are obviously disappointed by the district court’s ruling and the narrow manner in which it interpreted the right at issue,” attorney Andrea Carone said in a statement to the Idaho Statesman.

Carone argued that the law leaves daycares unable to take what the plaintiffs consider “reasonable steps” to protect children from diseases that vaccines can prevent. She called it “a clear public health issue” that the Idaho Legislature must address.

Parents don’t have ‘right to compel a third party to conform’ to their views

The Idaho Medical Freedom Act prohibits businesses, schools and government entities from requiring specified medical interventions as a condition of receiving services, employment or access to certain facilities.

The lawsuit centered in part on what the law means by a “medical intervention.” The law defines the term as a medical procedure, treatment, device, drug injection, medication or medical action used to diagnose, prevent or cure disease, or to alter a person’s health or biological function.

Le Soleil argued that definition was so broad that it could cover routine health and safety practices, including handwashing and sending sick children home. Brailsford rejected that interpretation.

Keep reading

Another Incredible Win Against the Covid Tyrants: New Jersey Jury Delivers Unanimous 8–0 Verdict for Christian Groundskeeper Fired Over a Religious Exemption — Awarded $671,000

A New Jersey jury just delivered a message that the Democrat machine in Essex County did not want to hear.

On Friday, an Essex County jury returned a unanimous 8–0 verdict for Theodore “Teddy” DeBlasio, a longtime groundskeeper at Essex County Hospital Center who was fired after the county denied his religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The panel awarded him more than $670,000 for economic and emotional harm. Attorneys’ fees are still to come. Punitive damages are next.

Attorney John D. Coyle of Coyle Law Group called it New Jersey’s first jury verdict in a COVID-19 religious exemption case.

DeBlasio, raised Catholic and now a Christian, objected to taking a shot tested or developed using aborted fetal cell lines. That is a sincerely held religious belief millions of Americans share. Essex County treated it like a punchline.

According to trial evidence cited by Coyle Law Group, in February 2022 the county denied every religious exemption request submitted by Christian and Catholic employees, and approved every request submitted by Muslim employees.

Coyle put it bluntly on X:

“It was revealed at trial that Essex County denied each and every request from a Christian employee and granted every Muslim exemption. That isn’t an exaggeration.”

“Catholic groundskeeper could not safely test and mask but a Muslim NURSE could test and mask.”

“Essex County determined that Teddy DeBlasio—with the crown of thorns tattooed on his wrist to remind him to think of Jesus with his actions—did not have sincere beliefs but a Muslim employee who photocopied another Muslim’s exemption, did.”

Keep reading

The War on Drugs Has Come to the Maternity Ward

At first glance, a new mother taking part in a drug screening seems reasonable. For the sake of the mother and child, a doctor performs a clinical test to rule out any complications or signs of risks to the newborn.

But the story quickly takes a dark turn. If there’s a positive test result, it doesn’t stay between the doctor and the patient. In 24 states and Washington, D.C., a positive test alone is enough to initiate a child welfare report, according to a report by the Legislative Analysis and Public Policy Association. Depending on the state, that test could land the mother on a child abuse registry. Worse still, the mother may be notified the test has occurred only after the fact.

This seems to run afoul of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001), where the Court found it unconstitutional to drug test pregnant women without consent solely for “law enforcement purposes.” 

However, Enrima Ukoha, an obstetrician-gynecologist and maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, tells Reason this practice—known as “test and report”—is “common” and “often happens in non-consensual ways.” In fact, over six years, The Marshall Project found “at least 70,000 cases in 21 states” where parents were referred to law enforcement after a positive test for drug or alcohol use.

Ukoha says a lot of medical professionals are influenced by “stereotypes and stigma” associated with people who use substances in pregnancy, leading them to make “false assumptions about their ability to parent.”

The practice developed as part of the response to the opioid crisis roiling the nation. Each year, nearly 10 percent of births in the U.S. are affected by drug or alcohol use. 

To deal with the issue, Congress amended the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 in ways that made it easier for these nonconsensual tests to occur. The 1974 law ties federal grant funding to state-level development of “plans of safe care” for infants “born and identified as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms.” It also requires healthcare providers involved in the “delivery or care” of affected infants to “notify the child protective services system”; however, it also states that nothing in the law should be read as requiring “prosecution for any illegal action.”

In 2016, Congress passed an amendment changing the requirement to include infants affected by all substance abuse by striking the word illegal from its substance abuse clause. In 2018, lawmakers passed another amendment that put money behind the idea, authorizing grants to assist state agencies with “developing, updating, implementing, and monitoring” their plans of safe care. And in 2019, the law was again amended to provide “civil and criminal liability” to anyone who makes a “good-faith report of child abuse or neglect.”

There is no federal definition for child abuse or neglect. Left to their own devices, each state has adopted different standards for reporting and treatment. Ukoha says the process “varies across providers, institutions, and states,” but the result is that “individuals are tested in pregnancy without their knowledge or consent.” 

Apart from potentially being separated from their newborns, mothers risk placement on child abuse registries—which would prevent them from holding certain jobs or participating in school activities—or incarceration. In the case of Idaho mom Nicole Hamann, one positive test for THC got her 10 years on the state’s child protection registry, according to a joint report by CBS News and The Marshall Project. 

But moms can find themselves facing criminal charges even when the substances are legal. In South Carolina, Ayanna Harris-Rashid was arrested and faced a 10-year felony sentence after testing positive for THC. Harris-Rashid admitted to using CBD, which is legal in the state and can contain trace amounts of THC, to “relieve cramping and nausea.” Her charges were dropped a year after her arrest. 

Keep reading

New York Governor Signs Bills To Preserve Mandatory Vaccines

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has signed legislation to preserve vaccine requirements for children.

Hochul, on May 15, signed two bills that decouple New York’s vaccine requirements from the federal government, after the Trump administration rolled back recommendations for hepatitis B and other vaccines.

“When public health comes under attack by an anti-science administration, New York fights back,” Hochul, a Democrat, said in a statement.

She added that the legislation “protects access to lifesaving vaccines for New Yorkers of all ages.”

One bill, Assembly Bill 10711, removes language about vaccines needing to be approved by federal regulators. Instead, it says that children must receive vaccines against measles, hepatitis B, and other diseases “in accordance with regulations issued by the commissioner of health of New York.”

Assembly Bill 10710, the other piece of legislation, requires health insurers to cover vaccines recommended by New York’s health commissioner, even if the shots are not recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New York has, in the past, only mandated vaccines approved and recommended by federal health agencies.

“Vaccines remain one of the greatest public health tools in history, protecting individuals, families, and entire communities from serious and preventable diseases,” New York Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald said in a statement.

“At a time when misinformation is undermining confidence in science, this legislation reinforces New York State’s commitment to following trusted medical guidance and keeping New Yorkers healthy.”

The Trump administration has narrowed its recommendations for vaccines against several diseases, including COVID-19, hepatitis B, and rotavirus.

The biggest changes came after President Donald Trump issued an order directing officials to review recommendations from other countries and update U.S. recommendations as appropriate in light of the results of the review.

A federal judge in mid-March blocked the updates, concluding that officials did not follow proper procedure when altering the vaccine recommendations.

The Trump administration has appealed.

New York Democratic lawmakers who authored or voted for the bills Hochul signed hailed the development.

“In an era where federal health officials are undermining scientific integrity and sowing skepticism about lifesaving vaccines, New York is making the conscious choice to champion our medical professionals and reaffirm this state’s commitment to the evidence-based practices that have safeguarded communities for generations,” New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said in a statement.

Children’s Health Defense, an organization founded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was among the groups that opposed the legislation.

Michael Kane, director of advocacy for Children’s Health Defense, told The Epoch Times previously that one of the bills would enable the state to require experimental vaccines, as it removed language stating that vaccines needed federal approval.

“It would also allow for foreign entities to determine what vaccines our children must take,” Kane said.

Keep reading

Leading Ethics Journal Floats Forced Abortion For Minors

Pro-abortion rhetoric has long rested on a slick focus group-tested “pro-choice” mantra, which claims that abortion is necessary for women to have “bodily autonomy.” But pro-abortion “ethicists” are now asserting that “justice for girls” demands that all underage pregnancies end in the death of the unborn child — even if it requires physically or chemically subduing the mother against her will.

That is precisely the case made in a new essay in the April edition of Ethics, the University of Chicago’s elite philosophy journal. Across 31 full pages, our two authors, Alyssa Izatt, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of British Columbia, and Kimberley Brownlee, her UBC professor, explain why compulsory abortion is essential for feminine justice. In fact, in two places they explain enforcing this upon objecting females “might then require sedation or physical restraint” even though it “could be traumatizing,” but still, “the use of restraint (chemical or physical) … is justified as a last resort when it is necessary to provide adequate care.” By “adequate care,” of course, the writers mean killing the mother’s preborn child.

You heard that right. Good-bye, “My body, my choice!” Hello, “Do as you’re told, honey!” Leftist patriarchy parading as feminist empowerment. The pro-abortion ethic is growing ever more sinister.

The authors’ reasoning consists of a basic syllogism, which they admit even the most radical pro-abortion warriors have previously failed to piece together. 

First, abortion is a fundamental, uncontested good. This prejudice is crystal clear in their paper. The only negative observation of abortion they could muster is this: “Having an abortion can be challenging and distressing, even for adult women.” That’s it. They add, “It can be a life-and-death decision, a reality that is far beyond the scope of appropriate childhood responsibilities.” Can be? They never confess whose life is at stake, but one clearly assumes they mean the young mother if she brings her unborn child to term.

Second, the authors assume that underage pregnancy and childbirth are always wrong because of risks to the mother. While the essay is mum on abortion’s risks, it spends pages detailing the physical and psychological dangers of pregnancy for girls and young women. In fact, the authors boldly state without qualification that “a child’s best interests are served by the provision of an abortion: Prioritizing her wellbeing necessitates that physicians and family members view her impregnation as a malady to be treated and take steps to terminate it.” Note that the authors consistently infantilize any female under 18 as “a child.”

Ergo, forced abortion upon underage girls and young women is clearly the most ethical action because they lack the maturity to realize abortion is life-preserving health care. As such, “medical professionals would be failing a child if they withheld abortion care, even if they did so because the child was averse to it.” That is their case.

Keep reading

Air National Guardsman Being Denied Reenlistment for Refusing Flu Shot Cites Violation of Constitutional Rights

After 18 years of dedicated service, Arkansas Air National Guardsman Chris Babczak is being denied the opportunity to reenlist next month—solely because he stood firm in his decision to refuse the flu vaccine [emphasis mine].

It is important to highlight that this will happen two years before reaching retirement eligibility. Additionally, it should be noted that this is taking place under the current leadership. Moreover, as these individuals should be ready to acknowledge at this point, scientific evidence suggests that receiving an annual flu shot may actually heighten the risk of contracting influenza.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to Technical Sergeant Chris Babczak who shared that he was able to opt out of the COVID-19 vaccine, in 2022, due to his involvement in a class action lawsuit with fellow objectors. After researching the effectiveness and risks associated with the COVID-19 shot, the C-130 aircraft electrician also submitted a request for a religious accommodation regarding the flu vaccine. “Like COVID,” he said, “it was a rubber stamp denial.”

In the years to follow, Babczak has taken it upon himself to learn the law and know his rights, stating that “never again will I ask permission for any of my rights when government agencies, to include the military, never had constitutional authority to interfere with conscience beliefs or to make health decisions for people in the first place.”

He pointed to Article 2, section 24 of the Arkansas Constitution, which explicitly states, “No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience.”

He further contended that “offering religious accommodations converts a right into a privilege and gives a false presumption that government, or the military in my case, can make a person’s health decisions by requiring a vaccine, even when a person lawfully objects.”

For him, “A person’s right to health is an absolute right, the constitution secures the right to health against government compulsion of a vaccine.”

Keep reading

Arbitration victory for workers denied COVID-19 vaccine exemptions

During COVID-19 lockdowns many Canadian employers implemented vaccine mandates, forcing employees to choose between job loss or an unwanted COVID-19 vaccination. TDF lawyers met with many union members confronted with this dilemma, and explained their legal rights under human rights legislation and collective agreements

Many religious union members who opposed vaccination due to their sincerely held religious beliefs, filed religious exemption requests with their employers. However, these religious exemptions were often denied arbitrarily and superficially. Sometimes employers requested written proof of relevant spiritual doctrine from a religious objector. Sometimes employers summarily rejected claims of sincere religious belief.

In 2022, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), on behalf of 7 unionized Air Canada pilots, brought grievances against Air Canada for improperly rejecting their vaccine exemption requests. After their religious exemption requests were denied, the pilots were placed on unpaid leaves of absence. The union members alleged workplace religious discrimination under their Collective Agreement and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

A labour arbitrator has now ruled in favour of the pilots, as reported in Air Canada v. Air Line Pilots’ Association 2026 CanLII 16803 (CA LA).

Arbitrator Hayes ruled that denying these religious exemption requests was improper and resulted in workplace discrimination contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Collective Agreement. The arbitrator held that it was not appropriate for Air Canada to direct employees to justify religious exemptions with a “personalized, written, and dated explanation from your religious leader explaining the religious reasons why you are unable to be vaccinated against COVID-19.” Arbitrator Hayes reiterated that the law requires an employer to assess an individual’s subjective religious beliefs rather than making an overly objective determination of whether those beliefs objectively conform to the mandates of the religion.

Keep reading

The Evolving Battle Over Vaccine Mandates and Informed Consent in America

In early February, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo made headlines by announcing the state’s intention to become the first in the nation to eliminate all vaccine mandates, extending beyond Covid-19 requirements to include long-standing immunizations for diseases like measles, polio, and hepatitis B. Speaking at a press conference, Ladapo framed the move as a defense of personal liberty, declaring, “Your body is a gift from God… Government does not have that right.” This policy shift, initially proposed in September 2025 by Governor Ron DeSantis (R) and Ladapo, aims to dismantle mandates for schools, nursing homes, and other institutions, arguing that they infringe on individual autonomy. If enacted by the Legislature, it could start a ripple effect, as more people are waking up to the truth about vaccines.

Ladapo’s announcement sparked widespread debate, with many Americans celebrating the push for “medical freedom.” Supporters argue it empowers parents and individuals, aligning with a broader post-Covid anti-mandate sentiment. Critics condemn it as a dangerous rollback that could endanger vulnerable populations, such as immunocompromised children. As of this month, bills like SB 1756 have advanced in the Florida Senate, expanding exemptions but stopping short of a full ban, amid reports of measles cases fueling the controversy. Public health officials fear this could inspire similar actions in conservative states like Idaho, which has already followed suit.

Keep reading

California Planning to Sue Trump Admin Over Revised Child Vaccine Guidelines, Bonta Says

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said on Feb. 17 that the state plans to take legal action against the Trump administration over the recent modifications to the childhood vaccine schedule.

The CDC on Jan. 5, with backing from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., narrowed the number of vaccines routinely recommended by the childhood schedule.

Bonta told Reuters in an interview that he has mobilized his team to identify the necessary details for a possible complaint against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including jurisdiction and legal grounds for pursuing the lawsuit.

“I like the facts. I like science. I don’t want to give any airtime to his—I mean, just conspiracy [expletive],” Bonta told the news agency, referring to Kennedy’s stance on vaccines.

Bonta did not specify when the state might file or whether it would be a multistate filing. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who also spoke to Reuters, indicated his state may join California in the filing.

The Epoch Times reached out to HHS for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Keep reading

Leftist Medical Orgs Try To Shut Down Debate On Vaccines

Left-wing medical associations have banded together to block an upcoming federal meeting in an attempt to table vaccine discussion and debate in a public forum.  

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), set to meet Feb. 25-27, is expected to discuss the recently updated childhood vaccine schedule. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and its cohorts are attempting to suppress open exchange through a court-ordered injunction scheduled for a hearing on Feb. 13. 

Shouting Down Dissent 

In January, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cut the number of recommended vaccines for American children from 17 to 11 following an executive order to investigate the vaccine schedule. The comparative report found that the U.S. schedule demands far more injections than other developed nations. Several vaccines on the schedule had never undergone large-scale double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials before being approved by the Food and Drug Administration, safety reviews have been incomplete or nonexistent for decades, and liability protections for vaccine makers incentivize production over protection.  

The update is reasonable, aligning the U.S. with most other developed nations; but the American Academy of Pediatrics responded with outrage, blasting the government’s “dangerous” decision-making and adding another complaint to its 2025 lawsuit against Health and Human Services (HHS). 

The updated recommendations are “causing unnecessary confusion … compromising access to lifesaving vaccines and weakening community protection,” railed American Academy of Pediatrics President Dr. Andrew D. Racine. A co-plaintiff organization official warned of the threat of “increased illness and suffering by children and their families,” if the updated schedule is enacted.  

None of this is expected based on comparative data, but the American Academy of Pediatrics’ response continues to follow the same pattern — shout down dissent and sue to suppress debate. 

In June, the American Academy of Pediatrics protested HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s removal of all 17 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices members, calling Kennedy’s replacement picks “vaccine skeptics” and the overhaul “an escalating effort by the Administration to silence independent medical expertise and stoke distrust in lifesaving vaccines.” 

The group then sued Kennedy for allegedly violating federal law in changing Covid-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women, amended the suit multiple times with additional complaints, and filed for an injunction to stop Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices from meeting altogether later this month. 

Keep reading