In a win for religious freedom, Liberty Counsel just settled a $10.3 million class-action lawsuit on behalf of 500 current and former healthcare workers who were denied religious exemptions regarding the COVID shot mandate. Of the 500 workers involved in the suit, half had quit or were let go and the rest took the shot. Because of this unlawful discrimination, North Shore University Health will pay $10,337,500 in compensation to these health care employees who were punished for their religious belief that it is wrong to receive an injection associated with aborted fetal cells.

As late as last September, the hospital system had been prepared to accommodate employees who sought a religious exemption by letting them undergo routine testing as opposed to getting vaccinated. But in October,  North Shore suddenly changed its vaccination policy on a whim, causing more than a dozen employees to file a class-action suit in Illinois federal court to block the hospital system’s vaccine mandate for its workers.

What was even more ludicrous about the hospital’s sudden decision is that patients, visitors and even employees of other hospital groups that provide medical or religious accommodations to their employees were still permitted to enter North Shore facilities..  Furthermore, under the new policy, former employees, fired for being unvaccinated, were still permitted to visit a North Shore patient (even if that ex-employee remained unvaccinated). Where is the logic?

The plaintiffs suffered a set-back last December when U.S. District Judge John F. Kness, an Illinois federal judge, refused to grant a preliminary injunction that would hold off the hospital’s vaccine mandate. He did, however, allow the employees (plaintiffs) to continue the suit under pseudonyms “given the charged atmosphere concerning vaccinations and vaccine mandates” and the workers’ showing of the harms they would suffer should their identities be revealed during the ongoing litigation.

But now their fortitude is being rewarded. Although the lawsuit settlement still needs to be approved by the federal judge overseeing the case, the positive terms of the lawsuit include:

-A change to North Shore policy which will ensure unvaccinated employees are able to apply for a religious exemption allowing them to work. In the past, requests for religious exemption were denied across the board rather than being considered, as they should be, on a case-by-case basis.

-North Shore will also change its unlawful “no religious exemptions” policy and make it consistent with the law and provide religious accommodations in every position across its numerous facilities.

-No position in any North Shore facility will be considered off-limits to unvaccinated employees with approved religious exemptions.

-Those who were let go because they refused to get COVID shots on religious grounds are eligible for reinstatement.

-An estimated payout of $25,000 to those employees who quit or were fired due to the vaccine mandate

-an estimated additional $20,000 to the 13 original plaintiffs.

-Workers who had filed religious exemption requests, but then decided to get the shots, will receive an estimated $3,000 each.

So what’s in it for Liberty Counsel which invested resources in terms of significant attorney’s fees and costs to bring this suit against North Shore in order to hold it accountable for its actions? Liberty Counsel will receive 20 percent of the settlement ($2,067,500) which is actually far below the standard 33 percent in cases like this.

The sweeping mask and vaccine mandates that became a part of daily life in 2020 have been unsettling. They’ve caused many of us to have our backbone tested as our right to personal and medical freedom have been challenged in a new way.  It’s unfortunate that the right to medical freedom was not enshrined in the Constitution and, at the same time, surreal that Founding Father *Benjamin Rush had the foresight to argue for it:

“Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of Men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.’

However, this historic, first of its kind, class-action settlement of healthcare workers against a private employer encourages individuals everywhere who desire to make their own choices about what is or is not injected into their body. Let’s take a moment to enjoy this victory, thank those who fought for it, and thank our heavenly Father.

*Benjamin Rush was a Founding Father of the United States who signed the United States Declaration of Independence, and a civic leader in Philadelphia, where he was a physician, politician, social reformer, humanitarian, educator, and the founder of Dickinson College.

Written by Dr. Harvey Risch

The time has come for states and the federal government to end their COVID declarations of emergency and the accompanying closures, restrictions, propaganda, distancing requirements, forced masking and vaccine mandates. COVID may circulate at some level forever, but Americans can now protect those vulnerable to it with standard medical procedures. They can treat it as they would the flu. Emergency measures need continuous justification and there isn’t one anymore.

Omicron has become the dominant variant. Over the past two months, the Delta variant strain—Omicron’s main competitor and the most recent aggressive version of COVID—has been declining in the U.S. That is true both in proportion of infections (62 percent on Dec. 18 fell to 2 percent on Jan. 15, then to 0.1 percent on Jan. 29) and the number of daily infected people (97,000 to 14,000 to 400), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. During the next two weeks, Delta cases will almost certainly decline to the point that the variant essentially disappears, as did the strains that came before it.

Omicron is mild enough that most people, even many in high-risk categories, can adequately cope with the infection. Omicron infection is no more severe than seasonal flu, and generally less so. In America, many of those vulnerable to COVID are already vaccinated and protected against severe disease.

Treatments have also vastly improved since the early days of the pandemic. The medical community has learned much about the utility of inexpensive supplements like vitamin D to reduce severe disease risk, and there are a host of good therapeutics available to prevent hospitalization and death should a vulnerable patient become infected. For young people, the risk of severe disease—already low before Omicron—is minuscule.

There’s evidence that Americans have built up additional immunity through the recent Omicron wave. Daily Omicron infections peaked around Jan. 11 and have been declining. Mortality from COVID, including some from remaining Delta cases, is now declining as well. Influenza in typical seasons peaks in mid-February. That Omicron has been decreasing since early January suggests that the decline may have less to do with seasonal factors than built-up population immunity. If substantial new variants arise, this suggests case and death counts could still remain relatively low.

There is no longer any justification for the federal government and states to maintain their declarations of emergency. The lockdowns, personnel firings, shortages and school disruptions are doing at least as much damage to the population’s health and welfare as the virus. The state of emergency is unjustified now, and it can’t be justified by fears of a hypothetical recurrence of a more severe infection at some unknown point in the future. If the government can grant itself such power, then the limits imposed by the federal and state Constitutions are effectively meaningless.

Americans have sacrificed their rights and livelihoods for two years to protect the general public health. Government officials must now do their part and give Americans their lives back.

Dr. Risch is a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health. This op/ed was originally published by the Wall Street Journal.

Wonder Land: President Biden must declare the pandemic over,
so that Americans can return to normal lives, in which Covid-19 is treated as endemic.
Images: AFP/Getty Images/Image of Sport/Zuma Press Composite: Mark Kelly

There is a new poll from Rasmussen Reports that is flat-out scary. First, here is a finding that probably won’t surprise you. Americans are split evenly on President Biden’s vaccine mandate.   Roughly half (48 percent) of voters favor President Joe Biden’s plan to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on employees of large companies. (The U.S. Supreme Court just declared this unconstitutional.)  The same percentage of voters oppose this.

Another split concerns Dr. Anthony Fauci. Forty-five percent (45 percent) view Dr. Fauci favorably, while Forty-eight percent (48 percent) have an unfavorable impression of him.

Nearly 6 out of 10 voters (58 percent) would oppose fining Americans who do not choose to get the COVID vaccine. However, the poll contains a very disturbing mindset in the deeper numbers among Democrats.

• Fifty-nine percent (59 percent) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens always remain confined to their homes, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. (This is opposed by 61 percent of all those surveyed.)

• Nearly half (48 percent) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or online or digital publications. (Overall, this anti-free speech idea is supported by only 27 percent of those surveyed.)

• Forty-five percent (45 percent) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live at designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. In other words, half of Democrat voters support COVID detention camps! (Overall, this is opposed by 71 percent of all voters.)

• While 66 percent of all voters oppose governmental tracking of the unvaccinated, 47 percent of Democrats favor a government tracking program for those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.

• Twenty-nine percent (29 percent) of Democratic voters support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if they refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

A near majority of the Democrat party, and in my view the mainstream media which shills for the DNC daily, is moving dangerously toward far-left totalitarianism under the cover of the COVID pandemic. President Biden’s strongest supporters are the most likely to support the harshest punishments of those who question the COVID narrative.

The poll didn’t ask this, but I would bet that close to 90 percent of those in favor of these ruthless steps would falsely claim that they believe in “tolerance.”

The poll was conducted on Jan 5, a time when the 91 percent less fatal Omicron variant was (and still is) upon us. Many scientists believe that the COVID virus is following the paths of other viruses by becoming more transmissible but weaker. They also believe that this mass Omicron infection, which is impacting both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, will boost national immunity. Historically, most pandemics of this kind last about two years.

More than two dozen pro-family organizations signed onto an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court to oppose the Biden Administration’s tyrannical vaccine mandate. The brief, filed on Monday, January 3, 2022, urges the Court to protect religious liberty and oppose this sweeping and unchecked mandate, which requires COVID-19 vaccination in employers with 100 or more employees with little to no regard for the religious liberty interests of American citizens.

In November, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the Biden Administration issued an unilateral vaccine mandate for the aforementioned employers. It did so without the approval of the U.S. Congress and without even allowing for public comment, which is a key part of the rule-making process. Because the mandate circumvented these critical checks, the mandate “undermines rule-of-law values,” the brief argues, “for it puts important policy decisions in the hands of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats…”

More importantly, by placing this power in the hands of an unelected agency, there is a great threat to religious liberty. “In the last 20 years,” says the brief, “[the U.S. Supreme Court] has repeatedly had to step in to protect religious exercise from agency hostility.” The OSHA vaccine mandate is evidence of this continued hostility, as it did not offer any guidance for religious employers or employees. Rather, it creates a potential religious conflict with its mandate, and then “places responsibility for that conflict in the lap of the employer.”

Putting aside the many strong opinions Americans have on the vaccine issue, this sweeping mandate by OSHA both exceeds the agency’s authority, and backhands religious liberty, a bedrock value of our nation.

IFI Family will keep you informed on any action by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue.

Written by Austin Scott Davies

Article II Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution provides that “[t]he legislative, executive and judicial branches are separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another. Article VI Section 1 provides that “[t]he judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court, an Appellate Court and Circuit Courts.”

With the passage of Senate Bill 1169 (SB 1169), Governor JB Pritzker and his cronies have attempted to usurp the exclusive power of the judicial branch of government.

To fully appreciate what Illinois Democrats have done here, let’s first examine the Health Care Right of Conscience Act. The legislators who passed The Health Care Right of Conscience Act (“HCRCA”) included within it a policy statement so that it would be abundantly clear to all Illinoisans what their intent was. The pertinent part reads,

The General Assembly finds and declares that people and organizations hold different beliefs about whether certain health care services are morally acceptable. It is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive or accept, or who are engaged in, the delivery of, arrangement for, or payment of health care services and medical care whether acting individually, corporately, or in association with other persons; and to prohibit all forms of discrimination.

The HCRCA prohibits any discrimination against those refusing to receive health care services that are contrary to his or her conscience. It states as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person, public or private institution, or public official to discriminate against any person in any manner, including but not limited to, licensing, hiring, promotion, transfer, staff appointment, hospital, managed care entity, or any other privileges, because of such person’s conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.

Discrimination by employers or institutions is specifically prohibited again in another part of the act:

It shall be unlawful for any public or private employer, entity, agency, institution, official or person, including but not limited to, a medical, nursing or other medical training institution, to deny admission because of, to place any reference in its application form concerning, to orally question about, to impose any burdens in terms or conditions of employment on, or to otherwise discriminate against, any applicant, in terms of employment, admission to or participation in any programs for which the applicant is eligible, or to discriminate in relation thereto, in any other manner, on account of the applicant’s refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer, assist or participate in any way in any forms of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.

Now, let’s turn to why the HCRCA has been put in the spotlight. Governor Pritzker, who has been attempting to rule the State of Illinois by executive fiat since the spring of 2020 under the guise of COVID-19 mitigation measures, has been recently losing in court.

The governor’s “mandate” that employers require vaccination or testing of all employees has been enforced voluntarily by many public and private employers, despite there being nothing in Illinois law to provide for enforcement of these executive orders. As a result, the HCRCA has been successfully used to obtain restraining orders against those mandating COVID-19 related mRNA injections and testing for COVID-19, without exemption for those who object to receiving that health care based on their moral beliefs.

All Illinois laws that require other vaccines provide for exemptions based either on religion or on proving that you have natural immunity from already contracting whatever disease the inoculation is intended to prevent. Pritzker’s “mandates” are different, because there are no exemptions provided for in state law when an employer requires you to receive a COVID-19 shot, and never has there been a requirement that otherwise healthy people receive a test for a disease that they have no suspicion of having in order to coerce someone to receive an unwanted vaccine. For those reasons, the HCRCA’s protections have been the last line of defense against these tyrannical mandates.

That’s why the governor, through his cronies in the legislature, tried to rush through SB 1169 during the fall veto session. In less than 24 hours, from October 25-26, the first (HFA 2) amendment to the original shell bill, which is similar to what was ultimately passed, received over 50,000 witness slips in opposition.

On October 27, the bill was amended again by Illinois House Floor Amendment 3 with no substantive changes, likely so that it could be sent to the Illinois Senate to concur without having all those opposing witness slips attached. Constituents took notice of this maneuver, and within only a couple of hours filed tens of thousands of witness slips in opposition to SB 1129 as amended by HFA 3.

The full text of SB 1169 reads:

It is not a violation of this Act for any person or public official, or for any public or private association, agency, corporation, entity, institution, or employer, to take any measures or impose any requirements, including, but not limited to, any measures or requirements that involve provision of services by a physician or health care personnel, intended to prevent contraction or transmission of COVID-19 or any pathogens that result in COVID-19 or any of its subsequent iterations. It is not a violation of this Act to enforce such measures or requirements. This Section is a declaration of existing law and shall not be construed as a new enactment. Accordingly, this Section shall apply to all actions commenced or pending on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 102nd General Assembly. Nothing in this Section is intended to affect any right or remedy under federal law.

It may not be readily apparent what the governor is trying to do here. It might appear that through this bill, the legislature was amending the HCRCA to carve out an exception that would remove its protection of people’s right to object based on their conscience to unwanted health care related to COVID-19.

However, that’s not what the legislature did here. By including in the bill the sentence, “This Section is a declaration of existing law and shall not be construed as a new enactment,” this renders what would otherwise be an exception for COVID-19 nothing more than a resolution and statement from this general assembly of what they believe was the intent of the previous legislature that enacted the Health Care Right of Conscience Act and its other amendments. Resolutions are merely statements of opinion. They aren’t amendments, and they certainly don’t change the law.

The absurdity of this is astounding. The legislature here has said that they believe that the HCRCA, which states that “[i]t is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive or accept … health care services and medical care … and to prohibit all forms of discrimination,” meant to say something like “except if it relates in any way to COVID-19.” Not only is this absurd and contrary to the plain language and ordinary meaning of the HCRCA, but also this is an unconstitutional attempt of the legislature to take on the role of the judiciary by interpreting what the intent of the HCRCA is.

In Illinois House and Illinois Senate debates when Republicans argued for the preservation of Illinoisans’ rights and of the HCRCS, Democrats and the Office of the Attorney General admitted that this bill came from the Governor. They admitted that the Attorney General needed his legislation to pass to help him in his fight against the people of Illinois using the HCRCA to protect their natural, God-given right to refuse health care based on their conscience.

What they didn’t admit, is that Senate Bill 1169 was meant to confuse the people of Illinois and coerce them into complying with mandates that they have no legal obligation to follow. The Illinois constitution prevents the Illinois legislature from interpreting the intent of the HCRCA. Only the courts have the power to interpret statutes and Illinois courts have given every indication that they believe the intent of the HCRCA was to protect all people in Illinois from receiving health care in violation of their conscience.

The Health Care Right of Conscience Act still protects your right to refuse COVID-19 related health care based on your conscience.

Austin Scott Davies is an attorney and founder of Midwest Legal Care , former prosecutor, and an active member of the Winnebago County Republican Party. He is also a board member for Concerned Citizens for America, a local chapter of Illinois Family Institute.

The information contained in this article is not legal advice and is for general information purposes only. Do not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information. Readers should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any legal matter.

I am not an anti-vaxxer, and plenty of my friends and colleagues have been vaccinated. And, from the perspective of those who believe that the COVID-19 vaccinations are safe and effective and even life-saving, I can understand the desire to see everyone vaccinated. But what I cannot possibly understand is the threatening, vindictive, heavy-handed bullying in conjunction with the mandates. Not only are these unfair and even cruel, but they give fuel to the fire of those who view the mandates as nothing less than dangerous governmental overreach.

Consider this October 18 story on The Hill which states that, “Chicago police officers could face repercussions, including losing retirement benefits, if they choose to not comply with the city’s vaccine mandate, according to a memo from the Chicago Police Department.

“The memo states that anyone who chooses to disobey the city’s vaccination policy will become the subject of a disciplinary investigation that could result in a penalty up to and including separation from the Chicago Police Department,’ according to CNN.

“‘Furthermore, sworn members who retire while under disciplinary investigations may be denied retirement credentials,’ it continues.”

How can this possibly be justified?

We’re talking about people who, in good conscience, will not be vaccinated, be it for medical reasons or religious reasons or something else (including having natural immunity after having COVID). They are even willing to lose their jobs rather than get vaccinated.

But, as if that was not bad enough, according to this report, the city of Chicago may actually strip away their retirement benefits. Is this anything less than outrageous?

A few weeks ago on my radio broadcast, a caller asked for counsel regarding the vaccine. He had served in the military for years but had serious reservations about getting vaccinated. Yet, if he chose not to get vaccinated, not only would he be dismissed, but, he explained, he would lose all the military benefits he had accrued over the years.

I was shocked to hear this, searching online for confirmation after the show (although the caller seemed quite sure that this was the case).

Although there are varied reports circulating online, early last month, U.S. House legislators openly challenged the announcement that those who refused vaccination would receive a dishonorable discharge. (For the record, and as noted on a military transition website, “A Dishonorable Discharge is the harshest discharge status a military service member can receive, as it is given via court-martial and not by military administration. Service members who receive this standing are accused of felonies involving homicide, fraud, desertion, and crimes that would put any person, service member or not, in hot water. If you receive a Dishonorable Discharge, it is not possible to reenlist with the military.”)

But was this charge true? Were military members being threatened with a dishonorable discharge? Some fact-checkers have said plainly that this is not correct and that the Biden administration does not have the authority to do this.

Yet this does beg the question of why the Military.com website reported on September 2 that, “House lawmakers have backed legislation prohibiting dishonorable discharges for troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.” It also begs the question of how and why news outlets were reporting this very thing. Was it manufactured out of thin air?

Even if this was being reported erroneously and dishonorable discharges were never being considered, we do know that on October 15, it was reported that, “The US Navy said Thursday that personnel who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19 will be expelled from the force, ahead of the November 28 deadline for the injection.”

And this: “People expelled for refusing the vaccine will receive a general honorable discharge, but could lose certain benefits or be forced to repay the cost of training and education in some cases, the statement said.”

Note carefully those words: “lose certain benefits.” And all because, in good conscience, they will not be vaccinated. How can this be justified?

The article also stated that, “Navy personnel who can claim an exemption from mandatory vaccines, for health or other reasons, can be reassigned from their current duties.”

And, it explained, “The navy has been particularly sensitive to the pandemic, because of the risk that a single COVID case could infect an entire ship or submarine at sea, forcing it out of action.”

But what about natural immunity for all those who have had COVID? Since this is far more effective than a vaccine, why must those people be vaccinated? As reported on Medical News Today, a major study from Israel “indicated that people who had never had the infection and received a vaccine in January or February of 2021 were up to 13 times more likely to contract the virus than people who had already had the infection.”

Yet these people face the choice of vaccination or else – and that “or else” is quite ominous. How can this be justified?

When it comes to those serving in the military, we’re talking about people who, for the most part, are in one of the lowest demographics for Covid fatalities. And we’re talking about people who have chosen to serve in the military, some for many years of their lives. And in some cases, we’re talking about people who have risked their lives and disrupted their families and perhaps even been wounded in the field of duty.

Yet, if for reasons that are valid in their eyes, they cannot receive the vaccination, not only do they lose their current jobs. Not only do they lose their military career trajectories (where that applies). But they also lose all the benefits they have accrued over the years.

What an outrage, especially when you consider that it is for those very benefits, such as college tuition aid, that some of them enrolled in the first place.

Again, I am not an anti-vaxxer. And, as much as I very strongly differ with the vaccine mandates, I can understand some of the thinking behind the mandates. But these vindictive and punitive measures are outrageous and completely unjustifiable. In the end, they will do more harm than good, hurting lives more than saving lives while increasing our general mistrust of authority.

May those in government (along with others enforcing these mandates) think long and hard. There is still time to reconsider, retract, and reverse course. That would be the honorable thing to do.

This article was originally published by AskDr.Brown.org.

The totalitarian-minded education establishment and its extreme left-wing allies are starting to freak out as conservatives abandon futile efforts to “reform” government schools in favor of a mass-exodus strategy. Even powerful union bosses are starting to panic.

The trend has been building quietly for years. But it has accelerated rapidly in recent months as a trickle of families fleeing the system became a tidal wave amid face-mask edicts, vaccine mandates, Critical Race Theory, Marxist indoctrination, extreme “sex education,” and other controversies.

The first major shoe to drop in response came on September 30, when the fringe left-wing magazine New Republic released a major article claiming Republicans were now out to destroy the public-school system instead of “reform” it.

“Republicans Don’t Want to Reform Public Education. They Want to End It,” blared the headline in the far-left magazine, famous for lying about and even praising the mass-murdering Soviet dictatorship. “Florida’s recent struggles over masks in schools augur a terrifying shift in the right’s approach to education policy.”

According to the article, conservatives are increasingly abandoning the idea of “reforming” public schools. Instead, the article argues, the new approach is to get as many children as possible out of the system and into private schools or homeschooling.

The article begins by examining a speech by Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran at Hillsdale College. Corcoran noted, correctly, that education will be the key to winning other issues, too. But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the article claims, is at the helm of pursuing the strategy to destroy government education.

“Trading in the decades-old, substantially bipartisan education reform agenda, a formula that was born in Florida, he is mustering a naked attack on the very existence of public schools,” the magazine claimed, arguing that this shift is taking place in the broader Republican Party in general as well.

And bigwigs of the trillion-dollar-per-year “education” regime are getting nervous. For instance, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) boss Randi Weingarten, who is quoted in the New Republic article, blurted out her concerns on Twitter.

“This isn’t just about masks or about Governor DeSantis’ political aspirations,” she said as state-level union bosses parroted her comments as well. “It’s about the complete destabilization of public education so that parents will choose private schools.”

And it is true: Conservative leaders nationwide are increasingly advocating an exit from government schools altogether. Just this weekend, conservative heavyweight Candace Owens urged parents to remove their children from government schools on Fox News.

“Pull your children out of public schools,” Owens told the cable network on Sunday. “The time is now, remove your children from these indoctrination camps, they’re not learning to be smart,  they’re not focused on hard academics, they are being brainwashed and and systematically controlled and what they want to produce, by the way, are failures.”

Before that, Evangelical leader Franklin Graham, conservative pundit Dennis Prager, talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh, and many others also called for parents to remove their children in recent years.

Some have been sounding the alarm for decades. Exodus Mandate Director Lt. Col. Ray Moore (Ret.), the godfather of the exodus movement, was thrilled by the shift in the conversation. “After decades of futile efforts to reform government schools, conservatives and Christians are permanently opting out,” Moore told us by phone.

“The dam is about to break,” added Moore, who is also chairman of Public School Exit (where this writer serves as executive director) and the Christian Education Initiative (CEI). “When this happens, on a large scale, Christians and conservatives will become good neighbors again, by providing Christian education services for our nation. This is the great hope for renewal of our families, churches and our nation.”

Conservatives and Christians now have the momentum — the wind is in their sails when it comes to rescuing millions of children from the dumbing down, sexualization, and indoctrination in government schools. The exodus is already happening, and it will accelerate in the years ahead.

As the forces of liberty advance, the next challenge will be to keep the same “education” establishment from destroying homeschooling and private school by providing tax funding with strings attached or other subversive methods. The future of America depends on the outcome of this fight.

This article was originally published by FreedomProject Media.

Dr. Jason Valentine of Mobile, Alabama has stated that he will, effective Oct. 1, no longer treat patients unvaccinated for COVID 19.  The Web site, “THINK” attempts to examine the ethics of the good doctor and others who have made similar choices or have indicated they are weary of treating patients who have refused to get the vaccination.

The site’s title “THINK” is rather ironic, as it appears little thought has gone into their evaluation.  It is also revelatory of the deterioration of ethics in America and in the medical profession that such questions are even considered in the first place.  Drawing their ethical standards out of thin air they try to make the case that while denying treatment for patients because you are angry with their choices may be unethical, you only need dig a little deeper to concoct an ethic for such a denial.

Their argument is that a physician may choose which patient has a more reasonable expectation of a good outcome and then deny treatment for those who don’t make the cut.  The assumption made, without support, is that there are fixed number of available beds, medicine, personnel, etc., which forces doctors to ration care and therefore, it is may well be appropriate to refuse treatment for those they deem to be ill due to their own bad choices.  No mention is made of how these facilities might seek greater flexibility so as to handle increased patient-loads when emergencies occur.  The caveat that they should direct the patients to other sources of care does nothing to mitigate the obvious: they believe the unvaccinated are unworthy of care.

Now, we could launch into satire, pointing out that Dr. Valentine has provided a remedy to the nation’s skyrocketing medical costs.  If we have no ethical responsibility to provide treatment to those who have brought on their own medical issues through bad choices then we no longer need to treat smokers, drinkers, obese, drug users or those who refuse to exercise regularly.  People who participate in any sport or dangerous activities like hang gliding or mountain climbing should also expect no medical treatment when things go wrong.  Driving has certain inherent risks, so hospitals should no longer be required to treat accident victims.  After all, these people have made the choice to endanger their lives, so they should not burden care givers with their self-inflicted injuries!

It is not surprising that as America spurns God and Christ we see a progressive deterioration of our historic compassion and mercy.  Christianity is THE religion of mercy!  Scriptures are clear that the foundation of salvation itself is the mercy and grace of God.  In Christ’s self-sacrificing death on the cross, He manifested the epitome of mercy.  While we deserved the wrath of God for our wanton rejection of His Person, will and goodness, Christ stepped into our place, took the wrath upon Himself and bestows love and eternal life upon all who come to Him.  Scriptures note that God is merciful to those who deserve judgment, and He calls us to imitate Him.

In fact, He stated that those who refuse to show mercy will themselves receive no mercy.  James 2:13 states, “judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.  Mercy triumphs over judgment.” NIV.   And “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy,” Matt. 5:7.  Mercy, by definition, is giving relief to those who through their own failures have brought disaster upon themselves!

Most Americans hold medical professionals in high regard for a reason.  We have believed that they enter such careers understanding the personal sacrifice which attends the work and are therefore worthy of praise.  If Dr. Valentine’s attitude is characteristic of most in the medical field today, then it may be that they are not so noble after-all and are unworthy of the high regard generally accorded the profession.

I would certainly hope that such a conclusion is unwarranted!

The United States was legally founded upon the principle of limited government, under which at the time of the founding, the federal government mandating specific medical treatment to individual citizens would never have been tolerated.

Yet, on September 9^th, Joe Biden issued an executive order [1] that “[e]ach agency shall implement, a program” to “require COVID-19 vaccination for all of its Federal employees.”

Current COVID vaccinations have been rushed to market (the first “full” FDA approval of a COVID vaccine was just weeks ago [2]), with apparently substantial shortcuts such as the overlooking of thousands of adverse events including death [3].

While for political purposes, Biden puffs the universality of his vaccine mandate, his staff has recognized [4], and technically complied with legal limits on his power to do so.

In order to make the order sound as broad as possible, the words “each agency” were used, but understanding that the Executive Branch has no authority over the Legislative or Judicial branches (or businesses and individuals not employed by the Executive Branch), they hide the limitation in a definition:

“Sec. 3.  Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

     (a)  The term “agency” means an Executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105”

In typical contract legalese, Biden’s legal staff has also quietly made a disclaimer that such programs be only, “to the extent consistent with applicable law,” which would include the requirement to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief (see “Resources To Fight Tyrannical Vaccine Mandates”).

Interestingly, Biden is the lone wolf in the federal government, as neither the United States Congress, nor the federal Judiciary has yet seen fit to follow suit. Perhaps they understand that the recovery rate for this pandemic is well over 98 percent, and would prefer to avoid the risks of taking the vaccine themselves.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to the offices of the President, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth and your U.S. Representative to demand that elected officials recognize that American citizens have Constitutionally protected liberties that the Executive Branch cannot usurp.

Moreover, you may want to ask them to stop mandating unproven medical treatments and allow citizens to consult with their own private physicians to decide what course of preventative treatment is best.

IFI supports an individual’s civil right to choose,
as an American, to vaccinate or not.

More ACTION: Please pray for the governing authorities, that they shall follow our law and the law of the Creator upon which it was founded, in all of their actions.

Read more:

Leftist Authoritarians Push Their Values By Any Means Necessary (IFA)

Vaccine Mandate Sticks It To Freedom (Tony Perkins)

The Revolution Will Be Bureaucratized (The Federalist)

Biden’s Divisive COVID-19 Vaccination Plan Favors Coercion Over Persuasion (The Daily Signal)

Footnotes:
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/09/09/executive-order-on-requiring-coronavirus-disease-2019-vaccination-for-federal-employees/

[2] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

[3] By contrast, in 1982 Eli Lilly recalled the popular and effective drug, Oraflex, a drug for the pain and inflammation of arthritis based upon 61 deaths in Britain and 11 deaths in the U.S.  As of September 9, 3,867 (of 9,470, or 40%) adverse event reports had been filed with the FDA for deaths of those receiving the single approved vaccination (Pfizer).   https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html 

[4] Unlike the Pritzker administration whose unlawful attempts through “executive orders” to extend his power over private individuals have recently become well-known, and well-challenged by Illinoisans.