//
-->//]]>

COVID vaccines developed using cells of aborted children – Clarence Thomas

 

COVID vaccines developed using cells of aborted children – Clarence Thomas

Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday that COVID-19 vaccines are developed using cells of “aborted children,” Politico reports.

Mr. Thomas’ dissenting opinion came on a case in which the Supreme Court declined to hear a religious liberty challenge to New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate from 16 health care workers, according to Politico. The mandate requires all health care workers to show proof of vaccination.

“They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” Thomas said of the petitioners, according to The Hill.

Politico reported that none of the COVID-19 vaccines in the United States contain the cells of aborted fetuses, adding that Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in testing during the COVID vaccine development process, a practice that is common in vaccine testing — including for the rubella and chickenpox vaccinations.

A group of doctors, nurses and other health care workers instituted the case suing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in an objection to the state’s vaccine mandate on religious grounds. The district court had issued a preliminary injunction which the Court of Appeals reversed. On Thursday the Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge.

The Court left in place the lower court ruling rejecting petitioners’ claim that New York’s mandate violates the First Amendment right against religious discrimination, according to Politico. All health care workers were either fired, resigned, lost hospital admitting privileges or decided to receive the vaccine, the website said.

Other judges who joined Thomas in his dissenting opinion are Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch who are conservative judges.

 Thomas said in his opinion that the court ought to have granted a petition to deliberate the question of whether the New York mandate can ever be neutral or generally applicable if it doesn’t exempt religious conduct but does permit secular conduct.

“Because I would address this issue now in the ordinary course, before the next crisis forces us again to decide complex legal issues in an emergency posture, I respectfully dissent,” Thomas writes, according to Politico.

 

 

//
//]]>

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post