Tag: mandatory vaccination

Troops Discharged Over Biden’s Vaccine Mandate to Receive Honorable Status.

The Trump administration is directing the Pentagon to proactively review and upgrade the records of service members discharged from the U.S. military for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine under the former Biden government. Administration officials say the effort aims to restore honor to individuals who received “general discharge” as a result of the mandate.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, in a December memorandum, emphasized the progress made since the initial directive to reinstate veterans who were involuntarily discharged or voluntarily left military service due to the “unfair, overbroad, and unnecessary” COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The new directive expands these efforts by ordering a review of personnel records to identify those discharged solely for vaccine refusal and facilitate appropriate upgrades.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell explained the impetus for the new directive, “Under the previous administration, the Department involuntarily separated approximately 8,700 Service members for failing to comply with the Department’s since-rescinded COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Of those, more than 3,000 received less-than-honorable discharge characterizations.” Parnell added that military departments have been instructed to complete their reviews within one calendar year, with no action required from former service members.

Military service members impacted by the former Biden government vaccine mandate may also access the military board review website to address any perceived errors or injustices in their records. “The Department is committed to ensuring that everyone who should have received a fully honorable discharge receives one and continues to right wrongs and restore confidence in, and honor to our fighting force,” Parnell noted.

Additionally, an Executive Order signed by President Donald J. Trump in November reinstated GI benefits for veterans discharged due to the vaccine mandate.

Keep reading

HS Senior Escorted from School for Following Doctors’ Orders and Skipping Vaccine Booster

A high school senior in a western New York school has been banned because she did not get a vaccine booster that causes her to have serious side effects.

Depew High School senior Kayci Rae was escorted out of school on Oct. 16 because she did not get a meningitis booster shot, according to WKBW-TV.

“I just sit and scroll, there’s really not much else I could do,” she said. “It’s more emotional with it being my senior year. I feel like I’m shunned from Depew.

“They wouldn’t let me say goodbye to teachers, they wouldn’t let me go into the classroom,” Rae said. “I was in tears. It was hard, it was truly devastating, honestly.”

She is now in limbo, because the email she used to connect with the school was recently disabled.

“She had leg pain,” Andrea Billi, Rae’s mother, said. “You know, when you’re younger, having growing pains? That’s what we thought, then it progressed. Her legs will turn purple and go numb.”

Kayci’s aunt Shannon told WBEN-AM that at first, “We kind of almost ignored it, because we were like, ‘Is [she] just trying to get attention for it?’ But then she started showing us her legs when she would get these flares, her legs started to mottle. I don’t know if anybody knows what that is, it’s almost like a marbling of your skin, and essentially it’s a vasospasm of your legs. So her legs would blanch, turn colors, and she would get this pain.”

“It’s disabling for her,” Shannon said, indicating the problems have not gone away.

“She’s had her friends give her piggyback rides because her legs would literally hurt her. There was a time where she collapsed at her softball game, which the school nurse was her softball coach and her softball coach witnessed all of this,” she said.

“And she was in softball two, three years ago, and she would actually have to sit out mid-game because her pain would start to flare from the high intensity activity. And her teammates would be there rolling their bats on her legs,” Shannon said, adding that the school was told of this.

Billi said her daughter has had multiple tests that have come up empty.

“The only factor that we came to a conclusion on was this all started after she got the vaccine,” she said.

Keep reading

U.S. Supreme Court Smacks Down Lower Court in Major Win for Amish Families Fighting New York’s Draconian School Vaccine Mandates

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower-court decision that had sided with New York State’s sweeping school vaccine mandates, and ordered the case back to the appeals court for a full reconsideration.

At the center of the case is a shocking and deeply disturbing campaign by New York officials to bankrupt Amish schools, intimidate parents, and shut down religious education entirely, all because the Amish refuse to inject their children with state-mandated vaccines that violate their longstanding religious beliefs.

Despite admitting that the Amish families were sincere in their religious beliefs, the New York Department of Health slapped three one-room Amish schools with devastating penalties:

  • $52,000 against Dygert Road School
  • $46,000 against Twin Mountains School
  • $20,000 against Shady Lane School

These fines were issued for a single day of alleged “noncompliance,” and the DOH openly bragged in its filings that it was being “generous,” warning that future fines would be even more severe.

The department declared that each unvaccinated child attending school constituted a separate violation worth up to $2,000 per day.

The Amish schools, which receive no government funding, operate on private land, and are central to the community’s religious life, face closure because the families have no means of paying these six-figure state-imposed financial attacks.

In one year alone, some New York schools granted medical exemptions to 30–50% of their students, depending entirely on local administrator discretion. But the Amish? Zero tolerance. Zero accommodation. Zero exemptions.

Lower courts dismissed their claims. But on Monday, the nation’s highest court issued a rare and forceful correction.

In its Monday order, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for reconsideration “in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025),” a landmark ruling handed down earlier this year strengthening protections for religious objectors against state public-health mandates.

Keep reading

Health Department Investigating School That Vaccinated Child Without Parental Consent

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on Dec. 3 that it has launched an investigation into a school that officials said illegally vaccinated a child without parental consent.

HHS did not name the school. The department said it is in the Midwest and acted illegally in part because it ignored a religious exemption for the vaccination that had been filed pursuant to state law.

The HHS Office for Civil Rights will be looking into the matter to ascertain whether the school failed to comply with a requirement under the federal Vaccines for Children Program. The program, which provides vaccines to various institutions, mandates that immunization providers comply with state law surrounding exemptions from mandated vaccines.

“To protect the integrity of the investigation, HHS cannot share additional details at this time,” an HHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.

Officials also released a letter on Dec. 3 to doctors and others, informing them that they must generally provide parents access to the medical records of children, with limited exceptions. The letter warned that HHS was making access to minor records a priority and that the agency will use tools it has at its disposal, including fines, to ensure compliance.

“Today, we are putting pediatric medical professionals on notice: you cannot sideline parents,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. “When providers ignore parental consent, violate exemptions to vaccine mandates, or keep parents in the dark about their children’s care, we will act decisively. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect families and restore accountability.”

Jim O’Neill, deputy HHS secretary and acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the Vaccines for Children Program “should never circumvent parents’ rights.”

The program, which began operations in 1994, sends vaccines to providers to administer to children at no cost. The program “reduces disparities in child vaccination rates, ensuring that any child can access recommended vaccines regardless of income or geography,” the CDC states on its website.

Schools across the country mandate multiple vaccines for school attendance, based on the CDC’s immunization schedule.

Keep reading

Colorado Medical School Will Pay $10.3 Million After Denying Religious Exemptions for COVID Vaccine

The University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine will pay more than $10.3 million to 18 faculty and students whose religious exemptions to the school’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy were denied, a group representing the plaintiffs announced Monday.

The lawsuit challenged the university’s refusal to accommodate sincerely held religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine. The plaintiffs, who sued anonymously, included physicians, medical students, nurses and administrative staff.

The Thomas More Society, which filed the lawsuit and represents clients in religious liberty cases nationwide, stated that the settlement is a rare instance in which plaintiffs recovered monetary damages under the First Amendment for a government COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Michael McHale, senior counsel at the Thomas More Society, said the resolution cannot undo the harm inflicted on the plaintiffs.

“No amount of compensation or course-correction” can make up for the damage caused by the university’s vaccine mandate, McHale said. “At great, and sometimes career-ending, costs, our heroic clients fought for the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans who were put to the unconscionable choice of their livelihoods or their faith.”

Details of the settlement, which followed more than a year of negotiations, were not released. According to the Thomas More Society, the school agreed to cover damages, tuition and attorneys’ fees.

The settlement ends nearly five years of related litigation in state and federal courts.

Keep reading

War Dept. Battles Internal Resistance To Reinstate 86 Soldiers Ejected By Covid Shot Mandate

It’s been ten months since President Donald Trump ordered the full reinstatement of any willing military employees ejected for declining Covid-19 shots, but as of Nov. 15 just 86 such personnel have been reinstated. The reinstatements so far account for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the military personnel who likely left over the Biden administration mandate, depleting the military of some of its highest-character members and causing a historic personnel crisis.

President Trump’s defense team is “picking up steam” to address the reinstatements more quickly and fruitfully and approval times are down to two to three weeks after the application package is completed, Undersecretary of War for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Tata told The Federalist in a Tuesday afternoon phone call from his office. Confirmed in July, Tata said he immediately sought out veterans experiencing impediments to reinstatement. In September and October meetings and memorandums, “I tasked in no uncertain terms to the services that they will treat each of the members with the dignity that they deserve,” Tata said.

“There’s a lot of moving pieces, there’s a lot of good people working very hard on this,” Tata said. “We all understand the president’s executive order and the secretary’s directive, and we are moving out at full speed to welcome every single person that wants to come back from this disaffected community.”

When one service member posted online that a military processing station had turned her away from seeking the reinstatement the Trump administration has promised, Tata said after talking with her he called up the station commander and said, “What part of this don’t you understand?”

More formally, he noted the department is investigating Biden-era Covid policies and their implementation across the branches, and that investigation will make recommendations about whether and which personnel violated law and military policy in carrying out Covid orders. The investigation team includes service members reinstated after the Biden administration drummed them out of the military for their conscientious objections to Covid mandates.

Former Air Force judge advocate general Kacy Dixon, herself reinstated after declining a Covid shot while pregnant, is Tata’s liaison to that investigation and to Covid-separated soldiers seeking reparations the administration has promised for their injuries, including honorable discharges, lost benefits, and back pay, even if they don’t re-enlist. Tata noted that back pay for reinstated soldiers is often between $100,000-$150,000 per person and it includes the proper pay for promotions soldiers would have earned if they hadn’t been punished for exercising their constitutional conscience rights.

Keep reading

Can the Government Mandate a Vaccine for Your Own Good? This Federal Court Says Yes.

Defending COVID-19 policies against legal challenges, government officials relied heavily on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a smallpox vaccine mandate imposed by the Cambridge Board of Health. But the breadth of the license granted by that decision is a matter of dispute, even as applied to superficially similar COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

Critics of those mandates argued that COVID-19 shots, unlike smallpox vaccination, do not prevent disease transmission, so requiring them amounts to paternalistic intervention rather than protection of the general public. Last summer in Health Freedom Fund v. Carvalho, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit dismissed that distinction as constitutionally irrelevant.

Rejecting a challenge to a 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) imposed on its employees, the majority held that the district “could have reasonably concluded that COVID-19 vaccines would protect the health and safety of its employees and students.” The implications of the 9th Circuit’s decision for the right to bodily integrity are alarmingly broad, since the court’s logic would seem to bless all manner of medical mandates that the government views as beneficial to the patient, even if they have no effect on other people.

The plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit case, including LAUSD employees who were fired because they refused to comply with the vaccine requirement, argued that Jacobson did not authorize that policy. Their case featured dueling interpretations of Jacobson that reflected different understandings of “public health.”

Is that rationale for government action limited to external threats such as disease carriers and air pollution, where someone’s actions risk harming others, or does it extend to self-regarding decisions that do not impinge on other people’s rights, such as lifestyle choices and consent to medical treatment? The 9th Circuit’s ruling implicitly embraces the latter view, which invites far-ranging, open-ended interference with individual freedom.

In Jacobson, the Supreme Court weighed “the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best” against the government’s interest in “preventing the spread of smallpox.” The majority repeatedly referred to that danger and noted “the common belief,” supported by “high medical authority,” that vaccination was effective at addressing it. The Court rejected the premise that people may do as they like “regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

That concern about injury to others, the plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit case argued, did not apply in the context of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. While smallpox vaccination effectively curtailed the spread of disease, they said, COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, although they may reduce symptom severity in people who receive them.

Keep reading

The Department of Defense Cannot Claim Ignorance Regarding Their Legal Violations During the COVID Era

Laws were clearly broken through the oppressive enforcement and administration of the military’s COVID-19 shot, yet to this day, no one is willing to acknowledge which specific laws were transgressed.

Last month, The Gateway Pundit brought attention to the fact that the Department of War continues to ignore multiple inquiries and FOIA requests.

They refuse to acknowledge that 10 U.S. Code § 1107a acts as a legal basis showing that the implementation of the COVID-19 shot mandate was illegal, even in light of the War Secretary’s public declaration deeming it “unlawful.” If something is considered unlawful, then a law or laws must have been violated? So, why do they refuse to name the law(s) that were broken?

10 U.S. Code § 1107a “[codifies] that individuals are informed of an option to accept or refuse administration of a product.” Regarding the administration of a product authorized for emergency use, such as the previously required COVID-19 shot, only the President has the authority to waive this federal code. Former President Joe Biden did not to waive it.

So, who violated the law? And, perhaps more crucially, who in this world is allowed to break the law and escape without consequences? Where is the accountability? That’s the question on the minds of service members and veterans.

The author conducted a survey involving more than five dozen members of the military who are currently serving, representing all branches of the military. They were asked about their references to 10 U.S. Code § 1107a in their objections to receiving the 2021 COVID-19 shot.

Both their original requests for accommodation or exemption, as well as their subsequent appeals, were blanketly denied. For many, their careers were ultimately preserved only due to a federal injunction or the later rescission of the mandate on January 10, 2023.

Keep reading

Army Lieutenant Who Was Court-Martialed for Refusing COVID-19 Shot Granted Full Reinstatement and Retroactive Promotion After Under Secretary of War Steps In to Fix Slow Processing

The U.S. Army has officially granted full reinstatement to former First Lieutenant Mark Bashaw, retroactively promoted to Captain, after Under Secretary of War Anthony J. Tata personally intervened to address the “last mile” delays in the reinstatement process.

Under Secretary Tata announced the action on X, formerly Twitter:

“On Monday, @MCBashaw emailed me about several ‘last mile’ issues in the COVID reinstatement process. We immediately convened @USArmy leaders to address them. At this stage, any delays are unacceptable. We’re committed to reinstating our impacted warriors ASAP.”

He later added that the Army and Department of War were engaging directly with Kevin Bouren and Mark Bashaw to resolve any outstanding concerns, noting that not all corrective efforts are visible to the public, but they are “happening steadily behind the scenes.”

Retired U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 and intelligence officer Sam Shoemate responded on Under Secretary Tata’s announcement, stating: “I spoke to [Bashaw]. You sure lit a fire under their ass to get him taken care of. The problem is that it shouldn’t take the Undersecretary of the DOW to get that done.

Keep reading

UT-Battelle to pay $2.8 million in COVID-19 vaccine requirement settlement

UT-Battelle agreed to pay more than $2.8 million to employees after a lawsuit over COVID-19 vaccine requirements, said the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

UT-Battelle is the managing contractor of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. During its investigation, EEOC said it found reasonable cause to believe that UT-Battelle had discriminated against ORNL employees by denying them religious accommodations from the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. This would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, EEOC said.

“I am grateful for the field’s hard work in this investigation, and UT-Battelle’s commitment to voluntarily rectifying its alleged Title VII violations by compensating its employees and agreeing to injunctive relief is commendable,” said EEOC Acting Chair Lucas. “While COVID-19 vaccine mandates were a novelty, our long-standing civil rights laws remain unchanged — absent an undue hardship, employers must provide a reasonable accommodation to its employees for their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Per the agreement, UT-Battelle will provide back pay and compensatory damages to those affected and train its human resources personnel on religious accommodation requests.

“UT-Battelle has always respected the religious beliefs and practices of its employees,” said Stephen Streiffer, president and CEO of UT-Battelle. “The COVID-19 pandemic required extraordinary measures to protect staff members’ health and safety while they worked together to keep the lab open. During unprecedented times, their dedication allowed us to continue fulfilling our national missions, including the production of medical isotopes to fight cancer and support national security. We appreciate the assistance of the EEOC in resolving these disputes, which allows us to move forward fully focused on our work for the nation.”

Keep reading