Applying the rule of law to NYC's vaccine mandate for teachers
.
Recently, NYC healthcare workers were granted an injunction protecting them from the NYC’s vaccine mandate.
The facts are:
- The Plaintiffs’ asserted a constitutionally protected right was being infringed upon by the NYC vaccine mandate.
- That such an infringement is subject to review by the court under the protection of the “strict scrutiny” standard.
- And, that the court, after reviewing the case, did in fact find the plaintiffs established the vaccine mandate being forced upon them was “likely to fail strict scrutiny” and why the injunction was granted.
Here is the Court’s MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER granting the injunction to the NYC healthcare workers who petitioned the Court.
So, now we turn to the following question:
Are NYC teachers having their liberty, medical privacy and autonomy infringed upon by the COVID vaccine mandate? If the answer is yes, then the protection of strict scrutiny must be applied by the court.
And what has the New York State Court of Appeals stated with reference to the peoples’ medical privacy, autonomy, and free choice in such matters?
See: Rivers v. Katz (67 N.Y.2d 485) 1986:
” In Storar, we recognized that a patient’s right to determine the course of his medical treatment was paramount to what might otherwise be the doctor’s obligation to provide medical care, and that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment must be honored, even though the recommended treatment may be beneficial or even necessary to preserve the patient’s life. This fundamental common-law right is coextensive with the patient’s liberty interest protected by the due process clause of our State Constitution.
In our system of a free government, where notions of individual autonomy and free choice are cherished, it is the individual who must have the final say in respect to decisions regarding his medical treatment in order to insure that the greatest possible protection is accorded his autonomy and freedom from unwanted interference with the furtherance of his own… ”
And what has our United States Supreme Court stated with reference to forced medical treatment? See: Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."
So, shouldn’t the rule of law be applied to NYC’s vaccine mandate which infringes upon a fundamental right of NYC teachers?
Do they not deserve the protection of “strict scrutiny” which, if applied by the court, may not only accommodate NYC’s use of the vaccine in their public school setting, but also accommodate the rights of NYC’s public school teachers, e.g., the use of N95 masks by teachers: a temperature check upon entry to a school, periodic testing for the COVID virus, social distancing, and other such common sense measures which could be narrowly tailored by the Court to provide protection while preserving the rights of NYC teachers?
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
St. Lukes Hospital gives thumbs up to employees with natural immunity
.
See: St. Luke’s, LVHN employees with natural COVID immunity can defer vaccine for a year
.
"Both of the major health networks in the Lehigh Valley have COVID-19 vaccine mandates in place for employees, but if any employee contracted COVID-19 themselves, they are allowed to defer getting the vaccine for up to 12 months."
I am very suspicious as to why the NYC teachers union lawyers neglected to seek this relief in court for the teachers they supposedly were representing.
For some reason my gut tells me they have sold out NYC teachers and are carrying water for NYC government COVID vaccine jabbers.
JWK
