Tag: mandatory vaccination

Application Denied: Another Dive into the Failures of Military Bureaucracy and COVID-19 Mandate Relief

On September 23, 2021, an active-duty Air Force officer who has served for 18 years submitted a request for a religious accommodation for the COVID-19 shot mandate. Four and a half years later, there is still derogatory paperwork in his personnel file, leaving him ineligible or significantly disadvantaged for all career advancement and more.

This story provides an update on developments from September 2025 and March 2026, reinforcing J.M. Phelps’ assertion that the Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMR) is “ineffective” and frequently highlights the widespread “bureaucratic malfeasance” within the military institution, providing little more than a “half measure” to service members, as in the case of Air Force Captain Anthony Monteleone.

Furthermore, concerning Air Force BCMR (AFBCMR), the situation underscores how their decisions are a direct affront to the goals of President Donald Trump and Department of War (DOW) Pete Hegseth to restore the military.

Case in point: On April 3, 2026, AFBCMR issued a “finding” that flatly denied any relief whatsoever to Capt. Monteleone. Given the overwhelming mountain of evidence reviewed by J.M. Phelps and provided to the Board, one can only conclude that the Board continues to undermine the efforts of President Trump and his appointees within the Department of War. This bureaucratic obstruction appears aimed at continuing the denial of mandated relief to those who suffered under the military’s unlawfully enforced COVID-19 shot mandate, which was rescinded in January 2023.

Mr. Richard Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserves, representing the AFBCMR and operating under the full delegated authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, stated that when it comes to Capt. Monteleone’s case, “the [AFBCMR] determined there was insufficient evidence of error or injustice. Accordingly, your application is denied.”

Sadly, for the author of this article, Mr. Anderson’s statement brings to mind the idiom, “If I had a dollar for every time I heard that.”

The Board’s stated reasoning behind this decision was that, although the entire mandate was ruled unlawful, the guidance from Undersecretary of War for Personnel and Readiness, Anthony Tata, to the branch BCMRs did not specifically state that all [emphasis mine] service members harmed by the entire COVID-19 mandate must be granted relief. Instead, in their interpretation [emphasis mine], his guidance indicates that only those punished for solely refusing the order to take the shot itself were eligible for remediation under the guidance.

Keep reading

Appeals court upholds West Virginia vaccine mandate, denies religious exemption

A federal appeals court ruled that West Virginia can enforce its school vaccine mandate without offering religious exemptions, overturning a lower court decision that had allowed an unvaccinated student to remain enrolled in an online public school.

In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit found the state’s vaccination requirement does not violate the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

The case was brought by Anthony and Krystle Perry on behalf of their daughter, who was enrolled in West Virginia Virtual Academy but was later disenrolled after officials determined she was not fully vaccinated. The parents argued vaccination conflicted with their Christian beliefs and sought a religious exemption, which state law does not provide.

West Virginia is one of a small number of states that do not allow religious exemptions for school vaccine requirements.

A lower court had previously sided with the family and issued an injunction allowing the child to continue attending school while the case proceeded. The appeals court reversed that decision, ruling the parents are unlikely to succeed on their constitutional claim.

Legal experts cited in the case said the ruling does not reflect what they describe as a shifting legal landscape around religious exemptions. They pointed to recent Supreme Court decisions that they say require courts to apply a higher standard, known as “strict scrutiny,” when evaluating such claims.

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

New York Democrats Introduce Bills to Preserve Mandatory Vaccines

Democrats in New York have introduced legislation that would preserve requirements for certain vaccines for children recommended by state health officials and major scientific organizations, even if federal authorities rescind approval of the shots.

State Rep. Amy Paulin, a Democrat, on March 26 unveiled one of the bills, which would alter the state public health law in New York that sets out required vaccines for children, including vaccines against polio, measles, and hepatitis B.

The bill, Assembly Bill 10711, would remove language stating that the vaccines need to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Instead, the law would say that parents are required to have their children receive the vaccines “in accordance with regulations issued by the [state’s health] commissioner, utilizing generally accepted medical standards and taking into consideration recommendations of” nationally or internationally recognized scientific organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics.

A second piece of legislation would require insurance companies to cover vaccines even if they are not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, provided they are recommended by the commissioner based on recommendations from the same organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, or national or international groups.

New York has historically mandated only vaccines that are approved and recommended by federal health agencies.

Keep reading

Air Force Officer Continues His Fight Against Vindictiveness and Intolerance Over COVID-19 Shot Mandate

An Air Force officer continues to battle one of the most egregious cases of vindictiveness and intolerance stemming from the military’s 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate, which was rescinded in January 2023 and deemed “unlawful as implemented” across all military departments in May 2025.

Following up on a story from September 2025, The Gateway Pundit spoke to Captain Anthony Monteleone to get an update on his case at the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).

On July 8, 2025, as directed by the Department of War, Capt. Monteleone submitted his packet to the AFBCMR to correct the harms from the unlawful mandate in collaboration with his attorney, Jeffrey Addicott, Director of the Warrior Defense Project, and Mike Rose, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS).

Two months later, on September 03, 2025, the AFBCMR denied his application, stating that his request “falls outside the jurisdiction of the AFBCMR,” and then reversed itself and accepted his case due to the directives from President Donald Trump and War Department leadership.

However, a grueling nine months after he submitted his package, and despite Congressional Representatives and multiple high-ranking Air Force officials reaching out to the AFBCMR on several occasions on behalf of Capt. Monteleone to stress the immediate need for relief in his case, the Board continues to delay the processing of his package.

As reported multiple times by The Gateway Pundit, numerous service members claim that the BCMR process is largely ineffective and that the Board’s willingness to engage amounts to little more than a superficial effort.

In short, despite the explicit directives from President Trump, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Undersecretary of War for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Tata, and the Secretary of the Air Force Troy E. Meink, Capt. Monteleone continues to have active derogatory paperwork in his personnel file. He is still experiencing significant and ongoing damage to his career due to the unlawful COVID-19 shot mandate, which is solely attributed to the prolonged time it is taking for the Board to review his case.

Keep reading

‘Smoking Gun’ Emails Show New York City Officials Played Role in Firing Unvaccinated Workers

Unredacted internal emails obtained after a three-year legal battle may reshape ongoing lawsuits over New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates, according to attorneys who spoke on “Good Morning, CHD” this week.

The records, obtained through New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), show top city officials and government lawyers working together behind the scenes to push back on religious exemption requests, privately dismissing workers’ beliefs while building arguments to help arbitrators deny them.

Attorney Jimmy Wagner, who led the records fight, said the documents expose a “smoking gun.”

In the lawsuits over the documents, the unredacted versions were visible to everyone in the courtroom except the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Wagner said. City lawyers knew exactly what the emails contained while making arguments that directly contradicted them.

“They’re literally arguing out of both sides of their mouth,” Wagner said.

The government attorneys claimed they were acting with integrity and protecting religious rights. Yet “in the same breath, they have this … smoking gun piece of evidence that shows the city from the beginning … believed that anyone making a religious accommodation request, especially as it was associated to abortion, it was BS. That’s their language — ‘BS,’ in capital letters,” he said.

Keep reading

Former MLB prospect sues White Sox for millions over COVID-19 vaccine injury

An awful vaccine side effect has allegedly sidelined a baseball player for the rest of his life.

Isaiah Carranza was drafted by the Chicago White Sox in 2018 but never made it to the major leagues. Now, Carranza is suing his former organization, saying it denied his vaccine injury after he was “coerced” into getting the shot.

Carranza played two years in High-A, the third-highest level of minor league baseball in the United States. However, 2022 was the last time he appeared in a game, and the former pitcher has since alleged that team officials warned him he would be “blacklisted” if he didn’t get a COVID-19 vaccine.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Carranza claimed if he did not get two doses, his organization would not release him from his contract so that he could pursue other teams. At the same time, he was allegedly told he had “no prospects of moving up” within the White Sox’s organization.

After getting the Pfizer vaccine, Carranza says he soon began suffering “extreme dizziness, nausea, near-fainting, and wildly fluctuating heart rate,” but the team told him it was simply dehydration, anxiety, and “rookie nerves.”

Carranza also allegedly began experiencing severe pain and dysfunction in his pitching arm.

“After receiving the vaccine, Plaintiff suffered severe adverse health reactions with little to no support from Defendants, who denied him necessary accommodations,” the lawsuit said, according to Newsmax.

Carranza also claimed that the injury impaired his ability to throw at a professional level and essentially ended his career. He is reportedly seeking $19 million in damages and has an estimated $557,000 price tag in future medical expenses.

The MLB did not have an official vaccine mandate but encouraged players to get vaccinated through its union and the league.

Carranza’s legal team said on its website that minor league players lacked union representation and the financial security to safely speak out against the “condition of employment.”

Keep reading

‘The People Showed Up’: South Carolina Lawmakers Side With Parental Choice in Two Vaccine Votes

South Carolina senators clashed Wednesday over childhood vaccination policy, but ultimately sided with parental choice in two key votes, the South Carolina Daily Gazette reported.

A Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee voted 7-1 to advance legislation prohibiting vaccine mandates for children under age 2.

Minutes later, the panel voted 6-2 to reject a separate proposal that would have removed religious exemptions for the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Advocacy groups supporting parental rights called the outcome a major statement on constitutional protections.

“Yesterday was a remarkable day for South Carolinians — and a reminder to the rest of the nation and the world that constitutional rights still matter,” Andrea Lamont Nazarenko, Ph.D., of the South Carolina Health Rights Cooperative said in a joint statement with Ashley Jones and Christi Dixon of South Carolina Family First.

“At a time when inalienable liberties are increasingly restricted in the name of public health, the South Carolina Senate made it clear: not here,” the groups said.

Dawn Richardson, director of advocacy for the National Vaccine Information Center, said the decision to halt the MMR proposal sends a broader message about vaccine mandates.

“It sends a strong message nationally that forced vaccination with the MMR or any vaccine holds no legitimate place in health policy or law in the U.S.,” she said. “Vaccine mandates need to be repealed, not entrenched.”

The debate unfolded amid South Carolina’s largest measles outbreak in decades. State health officials reported 990 measles cases as of March 3.

Linda Bell, the state’s epidemiologist, told lawmakers that about 95% of measles cases involve unvaccinated people. She said infections appear to be slowing after a surge in vaccinations last month, which rose about 70% compared with February 2025.

Federal health officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are expected to arrive next week to help contain the outbreak, according to Reuters.

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

Former Australian Member of Parliament Says Pfizer and AstraZeneca Paid Lobbyists to Direct Australia’s Leaders to Push Vaccine Mandates

A former Australian member of Parliament came out and said Pfizer and AstraZeneca are paying lobbyists to direct Australia’s leaders to push vaccine mandates.Clive Palmer, leader of the United Australia Party claimed ousted New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian was told she wouldn’t be charged in a corruption probe if she imposed a vaccine mandate.Palmer made these statements a couple weeks ago but it has garnered a lot of attention this weekend after Berejiklian resigned in disgrace following a corruption probe.Two weeks ago, Palmer said Pfizer and AstraZeneca were paying lobbyists tens of millions of dollars to direct Australia’s liberal leaders to push the double jab.According to Palmer, Berejiklian, who was under a corruption probe by the ICAC at the time, was told if she imposed strict lockdowns and vaccine mandates, she wouldn’t be charged.Shortly before Berejiklian resigned, she told Sydney residents that if they don’t take the Covid jab, they face total social isolation indefinitely after the stay-at-home order ends in December.Berejiklian made history for overseeing one of the most fascistic regimes in modern history like nothing we have witnessed in the Western world.It appears she was bowing to Big Pharma lobbyists and special interest groups once again proving Covid mandates have NOTHING to do with science or saving lives.Clive Palmer told reporters of Berejiklian: “The only way she gets out of the inquiry is if she pushes the double jab.”A lefty reporter pushed back on Clive Palmer: “You think the premier of New South Wales is trying to destroy businesses?”“I do,” Palmer replied. “She’s being directed by lobbyists in Sydney, who is being paid by AstraZeneca and by Pfizer tens of millions of dollars to get these policies through, to make sure the vaccines get pushed…that’s my personal knowledge and I’m happy to make a statement here, to police, to anyone.”

Keep reading