America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) filed a brief for a case going before the Supreme Court today. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers at facilities that receive federal funding.
From the AFLDS:
As you are likely aware, the medical consensus on the COVID-19 “vaccine” effectiveness is that they do not prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. As you also may know, AFLDS recently filed a brief with the Supreme Court noting that these injections are merely a personal treatment choice, and not a public health measure at all. With over 50 other citations, AFLDS’ brief breaks new legal ground.
We want to remind you that the SCOTUS has scheduled one hour of oral argument on the OSHA mandate tomorrow, Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. EST. A second hour of oral argument on the CMS mandate for healthcare workers will be conducted at 11:00 a.m. EST.
The following is in their brief:
It is the consensus of the medical community that the currently available Covid-19 vaccine injections do not prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Relevant federal agencies have repeatedly acknowledged this consensus. Therefore, there is no scientific or legal justification for OSHA to segregate injected and un-injected people. Indeed, since the Covid-19 injections do not confer immunity upon the recipients, but are claimed to merely reduce the symptoms of the disease, they do not fall within the long-established definition of a vaccine at all. They are instead treatments and must be analyzed as such under the law.
Even if OSHA possessed the statutory and constitutional authority to issue the ETS now challenged before the Court, which it does not, the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would require the federal government to establish that the OSHA ETS is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. This is a standard it cannot meet.
Here is a pdf of their brief:
We know that the liberal judges will follow orders like good little puppy dogs, so it will be up to the other judges to stand for freedom.