Religious exemption language
When human rights abuses are inflicted against us and our constitutional rights, there are legal ways to resist.
© Colleen Huber, NMD
What happened yesterday?
Five Supreme Court justices acted in a way yesterday (except for a thin thread of possible excuse, as I discuss below) that possibly violated the Constitution and federal law. Except that they did not create a new mandate; they simply stayed an existing one not of their creation, and they kicked the matter back to lower courts to be decided in more detailed litigation there. However, by that time, healthcare workers, those with legal standing, will have been irreversibly injected in gross violation of every contemporary understanding of human rights.
I am referring to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate forcing healthcare workers whose employers receive Medicare / Medicaid funds to be injected with COVID vaccines, whether they want to or not. Notably all four dissenting justices, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett, wrote dissenting opinions. In a 5-4 vote, the majority ruled to allow Biden’s mandate that healthcare workers in Medicare / Medicaid facilities must be forced to take the COVID vaccines, or lose their jobs. In doing so, the five justices in the majority ignored the following laws and international treaties.
- the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which defers any powers to the states or to the people that are not delegated to it by the Constitution. I am not an attorney, but I am quite sure the US government has never been granted authority to medicate (or inject or force inject or force medicate) any citizen, regardless of type of work.
- Arguably the First Amendment, protecting freedom of religion and freedom of speech, considering that action (i.e. refusing a vaccine) is an expressive act, and has been previously considered as a form of speech.
- The Fourteenth Amendment provides for equal protection under the laws. It would be a flagrant violation to force a healthcare worker to be subject to unwanted medical treatment when fellow citizens are not.
- Practicing medicine without a license. I have been told by an attorney that this is a violation of criminal law in all 50 states. I am not an attorney and cannot speak about that knowledgeably. But I would think that even Supreme Court justices may not prescribe a medical treatment without a license to practice medicine.
- Practicing forced medicine on those who do not want it. This is the biggest elephant in the room. This is a violation of federal informed consent law 45 CFR §46.116 and much of the rest of 45 CFR §46, as the only COVID vaccines available in the US to date are experimental and under “Emergency Use Authorization.” (Comirnaty was FDA approved, but is not yet available anywhere in the US, nor will be this year, we are told.) Practicing forced medicine also violates the Nuremberg Code and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Helsinki Declaration. Some of history's most noxious barbarians chose to administer some form of poisons to their victims. Information already gathered by the US federal government, Department of Health and Human Services' own database, VAERS, showed that the COVID vaccines have caused more deaths in only one year than all other vaccines combined over the last 30 years.   I explain more specifically here how that happened: https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/trading-covid-for-heart-disease-buys
The Nuremberg Code arose out of humanity's essential need to prevent another Holocaust. Attorney Mary Holland says, "If we learned anything from World War II, it's that medical procedures must not be forced on individuals." I think she means even medical procedures that could very well turn out to be benign, and that your well-meaning relatives and co-workers urge you to get. The bottom line from a human rights perspective is: Your medicine may be my poison, and I alone decide that.
Even without the Supreme Court decision, is there any obligation to comply with an unconstitutional law? From Marbury v Madison 5 US 137: Any law, mandate or other that is “repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.” Understanding the fundamental principles of human rights enshrined in the US Constitution and the Nuremberg Code should have been a strict requirement for all of these justices at various checkpoints in their development as middle school and high school graduates, let alone as attorneys and then jurists. Every doctor and pharmacist knows this principle well: Never force, coerce, threaten or even unduly pressure a medical treatment on a patient. As a physician, I was required to study informed consent principles in medical jurisprudence courses both in medical school and later in my role as an IRB member. That later training was done in seminars given by the Office of Human Research Protections of the US government HHS. How were these justices exempt from such basic human rights and federal informed consent law training? How was Biden exempt?
Justice Clarence Thomas understands the issue well. In his dissent of yesterday, Justice Thomas wrote, “These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID-19 vaccines. They are only about whether CMS has the statutory authority to force healthcare workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo.” 
But here we are, amid the shambles of the Schwab/Gates concocted great reset / digital passport /’we own you and your possessions’ reset, which by the way suffered an important defeat yesterday, because the great news of the day was that the OSHA mandate was rejected by the Supreme Court. Now most Americans are not likely to be inflicted with a digital vaccine passport enabled China-type social credit system, at least any time soon. Or at least, the resetters will have some considerable hurdles before they could push the US to that point, after yesterday's OSHA ruling.
But SCOTUS did rubber stamp yesterday the (what I believe to be) clearly unconstitutional and illegal assault by the Biden Administration on the bodily autonomy, personal choice and medical wisdom of medical professionals.
Many healthcare workers have been too intimidated by threats of job loss to openly resist the new biofascists, but have fought back with various non-compliance, passive resistance, contractual demands (such as you, employer, must agree in writing to un-inject your witches' brew from me before I leave work each day), and other perfectly legitimate forms of civil disobedience, disrespect and inconvenient obstacles against their knuckle-dragging employers who opted for a human rights-violated, vaccine-sickened and resentful workforce. Heckuva job, bosses!
Even in this debacle of human rights abuse from the majority decision, there is a window of hope left open by the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday: Religious exemption and medical exemption. In the Court’s opinion on the CMS case yesterday:
“The Secretary of Health and Human Services administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which provide health insurance for millions of elderly, disabled, and low income Americans. In November 2021, the Secretary announced that, in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, participating facilities must ensure that their staff—unless exempt for medical or religious reasons—are vaccinated against COVID–19. 86 Fed. Reg. 61555 (2021). Two District Courts enjoined enforcement of the rule, and the Government now asks us to stay those injunctions. Agreeing that it is entitled to such relief, we grant the applications.“ [Emphasis mine]. 
Religious exemption requires no outside stamp of approval, such as from a physician, as it is a declaration by an individual. Although some have argued that an employer may deny such an exemption (the Interim Rule), the US government itself confirms that “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion (or lack of religious belief in hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment.” And: “It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion . . . “ 
I am not an attorney, but the Civil Rights Act seems to be prohibitive against an employer’s attempt to deny religious exemption. The Supreme Court has previously honored any "sincerely held religious belief" as adequate ground for religious exemption. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act  reinforces the First Amendment and was upheld earlier this month even in defense of the First Amendment rights of military service members. Religious exemption is a declaration made by an individual, backed by the First Amendment and now acknowledged again yesterday in a Supreme Court ruling.
Below you will find some language used with employers that has been seen to be successful in the COVID era for expressing religious objection, and thus asserting religious exemption to the COVID vaccines. How do I already know this, when the SCOTUS decision only came down yesterday? Because here in Arizona we have long had some of the strongest exemptions to vaccines of any states, including religious exemption. And that fact is exactly one of two reasons that brought my family here decades ago. Now 100,000s of families have made the same or similar exodus to the free states. In Arizona, we see this especially from California, skyrocketing our housing prices, but that's another topic.
Already several dozen patients of mine (including MDs, RNs, pharmacists, pilots and flight attendants, but even more, workers in large companies, including out-of-state) have kept their jobs in the COVID era using some variation of some of the following language for religious exemption from vaccines.
If you agree, and especially if you feel strong agreement with any of the following, (I am not an attorney, so cannot say confidently, but would think that) it would rise to the level of sincerely held religious belief:
- 1 Corinthians 6:19 - "The body is the temple of the spirit." The corollary to this is not to recklessly trash the body with experimental treatments, especially substances that have already proven to be toxic.
- COVID vaccines were developed using tissue cloned from aborted fetal cells. I do not support that industry, and do not want that cannibalistic abomination injected into me.
- A Harvard study has shown that exogenous mRNA can change DNA.  If I am forced to risk changing my DNA, am I still the creature that God created? Or do I then become somebody's genetic experiment?
- The right to bodily autonomy is inherent in each human being and is God-given. I am not a member of any religion that condones forced injection of anything, even saline, into the body of an unwilling person.
- My refusal to participate in the vaccine superstition cult is my expression of my sincerely held religious belief.
Each of the above statements have been made by multiple employees known to me to have been expressed successfully to their employers, who then dropped the requirement. Recently, COVID era topics are the topics that my patients want to discuss most avidly, so I get a lot of information from them about what has worked with their and their family members’ employers.
If you think some of the above language would be useful to a healthcare worker or to a resident of one of the cities that have fallen to biofascism, such as NYC, Chicago, etc, please share it with them.
 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. US Dept of Health and Human Services.
 L Le Mahieu. Supreme Court allows CMS vaccine mandate for healthcare workers to go forward. Jan 13 2022. Daily Wire. https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-allows-cms-vaccine-mandate-for-healthcare-workers-to-go-forward
 J Adler. Breaking: SCOTUS stays OSHA vax-or-test rule, allows CMS vaccine mandate for heathcare workers to take effect. Jan 13 2022. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/13/breaking-scotus-stays-osha-vax-or-test-rule-allows-cms-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers-to-take-effect/
 US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Fact Sheet: Religious discrimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/fact-sheet-religious-discrimination
 S Perry. Court delivers win to military members denied religious exemptions from Pentagon vaccine mandate. Jan 4 2022. https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/01/04/court-delivers-win-to-military-members-denied-religious-exemptions-from-pentagon-vaccine-mandate/