HeartDoc Andrew
2024-10-13 18:36:04 UTC
Reply
Permalinkhttps://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1g2i4mf/federal_appeals_court_reinstates_vaccine_choice/
Federal appeals court reinstates vaccine choice law for Montana health
care facilities
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision comes nearly two years after
House Bill 702 was partially blocked.
by Mara Silvers
10.10.2024
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Credit: Adobe stock. May not be republished without license.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Montanas
pandemic-era law barring vaccine mandates and data collection may go
into effect in health care settings, reversing a federal judges
injunction from 2022 after state attorneys appealed the case early last
year.
House Bill 702, which was already in place for many other private
businesses and employment settings, prohibits employers from
discriminating on the basis of a persons vaccination status. The law
applies not only to COVID-19 vaccines but also to immunizations against
measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis
and hepatitis B.
The Thursday ruling by a panel of three justices allows HB 702 to now
apply to health care facilities that were shielded from compliance under
the federal district court injunction.
The plaintiffs that challenged the 2021 Republican-backed law included
immunocompromised patients, the Montana Medical Association, the Montana
Nurses Association, Western Montana Clinic and Five Valleys Urology.
Read the ruling
Download
Together, the plaintiffs argued that the law conflicted with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to take available
precautions against the spread of infectious diseases. They also said
that the law made carveouts for some health facilities, such as senior
and long-term care centers when specific federal regulations apply, but
not others.
During a three-day trial in Missoula in 2021, the plaintiffs summoned
multiple health care experts and facility employees to testify about how
up-to-date vaccine information can help track which employees are
inoculated against transmittable diseases, such as whooping cough. That
type of mandatory documentation is prohibited by HB 702, making it
difficult to assign workers to different units and patients based on
their immunization status.
In the 2022 ruling, federal Montana district judge Donald Molloy ruled
that the state law was preempted by the federal ADA and OSH Act, as it
applied to health care settings, and was unconstitutional under the
federal equal protection clause by creating distinct classes of
facilities that are similarly situated.
But the Thursday ruling from the Ninth Circuit reversed Molloys
decision on all fronts, finding that the plaintiffs arguments were too
general to show that a real and present conflict exists between state
and federal statutes.
The district courts findings at most support a hypothetical or
potential conflict between the [Occupational Health Act] and HB 702,
which is insufficient, the court wrote.
Determining that the Montana law prohibits employers from keeping
workers safe from recognized hazards, such as disease transmission,
requires a more specific understanding in any given case about the
nature of the employer, the workplace, the diseases in question, the
risks they pose, the availability and feasibility of other methods of
preventing the transfer of vaccine-preventable diseases, and so on, the
ruling said.
Regarding the ADA, the court also said that the plaintiffs concerns
were not specific.
Plaintiffs do not argue that the ADA expressly preempts HB 702, but
that it does so impliedly, the court said. Although this does not
foreclose challenges based on future or anticipated conflicts, it does
mean that speculative conflicts are not sufficient [T]he record must
fairly support an irreconcilable conflict between federal and state law.
The appeals court decision criticized Molloys findings as overbroad,
citing the lack of evidence and sufficient fact-finding presented by the
parties during the trial.
[T]he district court below made no apparent findings about whether the
requested accommodation would be necessary to accommodate any specific
ADA claimants, let alone all ADA-protected persons in health care
settings. Nor did the district court properly consider whether ADA
beneficiaries could be reasonably accommodated in ways that do not
violate HB 702, such as through uniform PPE requirements, testing
measures, appropriate alternative work arrangements, and so on, the
ruling stated.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Austin Knudsens office celebrated
the appeal courts decision in a Thursday statement.
This is great news for Montanans. No one should be subject to
discrimination because of their vaccination status. Were glad the Ninth
Circuit corrected Molloys erroneous decision, said spokesperson Chase
Scheuer.
The Montana Medical Association, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said
it was considering next steps.
Physicians and health care providers want patients to know that our
policies are set to protect them when they seek treatment, said MMA
president Ernest Gray, adding that this decision makes that more
difficult. He said the organization is reviewing the decision of the
Ninth Circuit and weighing our future legal options.
The Montana Nurses Association echoed that comment in a Thursday
afternoon statement.
At trial, community members came together to show how dangerous this
law is for health care in Montana, said MNA CEO Vicky Byrd. We are
analyzing the Courts decision and assessing our next steps.
In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor ofFederal appeals court reinstates vaccine choice law for Montana health
care facilities
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision comes nearly two years after
House Bill 702 was partially blocked.
by Mara Silvers
10.10.2024
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Credit: Adobe stock. May not be republished without license.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Montanas
pandemic-era law barring vaccine mandates and data collection may go
into effect in health care settings, reversing a federal judges
injunction from 2022 after state attorneys appealed the case early last
year.
House Bill 702, which was already in place for many other private
businesses and employment settings, prohibits employers from
discriminating on the basis of a persons vaccination status. The law
applies not only to COVID-19 vaccines but also to immunizations against
measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis
and hepatitis B.
The Thursday ruling by a panel of three justices allows HB 702 to now
apply to health care facilities that were shielded from compliance under
the federal district court injunction.
The plaintiffs that challenged the 2021 Republican-backed law included
immunocompromised patients, the Montana Medical Association, the Montana
Nurses Association, Western Montana Clinic and Five Valleys Urology.
Read the ruling
Download
Together, the plaintiffs argued that the law conflicted with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) to take available
precautions against the spread of infectious diseases. They also said
that the law made carveouts for some health facilities, such as senior
and long-term care centers when specific federal regulations apply, but
not others.
During a three-day trial in Missoula in 2021, the plaintiffs summoned
multiple health care experts and facility employees to testify about how
up-to-date vaccine information can help track which employees are
inoculated against transmittable diseases, such as whooping cough. That
type of mandatory documentation is prohibited by HB 702, making it
difficult to assign workers to different units and patients based on
their immunization status.
In the 2022 ruling, federal Montana district judge Donald Molloy ruled
that the state law was preempted by the federal ADA and OSH Act, as it
applied to health care settings, and was unconstitutional under the
federal equal protection clause by creating distinct classes of
facilities that are similarly situated.
But the Thursday ruling from the Ninth Circuit reversed Molloys
decision on all fronts, finding that the plaintiffs arguments were too
general to show that a real and present conflict exists between state
and federal statutes.
The district courts findings at most support a hypothetical or
potential conflict between the [Occupational Health Act] and HB 702,
which is insufficient, the court wrote.
Determining that the Montana law prohibits employers from keeping
workers safe from recognized hazards, such as disease transmission,
requires a more specific understanding in any given case about the
nature of the employer, the workplace, the diseases in question, the
risks they pose, the availability and feasibility of other methods of
preventing the transfer of vaccine-preventable diseases, and so on, the
ruling said.
Regarding the ADA, the court also said that the plaintiffs concerns
were not specific.
Plaintiffs do not argue that the ADA expressly preempts HB 702, but
that it does so impliedly, the court said. Although this does not
foreclose challenges based on future or anticipated conflicts, it does
mean that speculative conflicts are not sufficient [T]he record must
fairly support an irreconcilable conflict between federal and state law.
The appeals court decision criticized Molloys findings as overbroad,
citing the lack of evidence and sufficient fact-finding presented by the
parties during the trial.
[T]he district court below made no apparent findings about whether the
requested accommodation would be necessary to accommodate any specific
ADA claimants, let alone all ADA-protected persons in health care
settings. Nor did the district court properly consider whether ADA
beneficiaries could be reasonably accommodated in ways that do not
violate HB 702, such as through uniform PPE requirements, testing
measures, appropriate alternative work arrangements, and so on, the
ruling stated.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Austin Knudsens office celebrated
the appeal courts decision in a Thursday statement.
This is great news for Montanans. No one should be subject to
discrimination because of their vaccination status. Were glad the Ninth
Circuit corrected Molloys erroneous decision, said spokesperson Chase
Scheuer.
The Montana Medical Association, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said
it was considering next steps.
Physicians and health care providers want patients to know that our
policies are set to protect them when they seek treatment, said MMA
president Ernest Gray, adding that this decision makes that more
difficult. He said the organization is reviewing the decision of the
Ninth Circuit and weighing our future legal options.
The Montana Nurses Association echoed that comment in a Thursday
afternoon statement.
At trial, community members came together to show how dangerous this
law is for health care in Montana, said MNA CEO Vicky Byrd. We are
analyzing the Courts decision and assessing our next steps.
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
longer effective.
Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
So how are you ?