Unraveling the Intricacies: How State Attorneys General, Private Employers, and Hospitals Challenged Constitutional Rights During the Pandemic

Navigating Constitutional Waters in Times of Crisis: Uncovering a Coordinated Challenge to American Rights

In an intricate web of actions, state attorneys general, private employers, and hospitals joined forces during the pandemic to challenge the constitutional rights of American citizens, specifically their Equal Protection and Due Process rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. This orchestrated effort, which we will explore in detail, sheds light on a series of complex legal and ethical issues that have come to the forefront during these challenging times.

1. Federal Procurement of COVID-19 Medications

At the heart of this issue is the federal government's acquisition of all COVID-19 medications, regardless of whether they were licensed or operating under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This decision laid the foundation for a series of subsequent events that would significantly impact the American people.

2. The CDC's Role in Distribution

The CDC played a pivotal role by creating the CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program Providers Agreement, designed to facilitate the distribution of federal resources. States were required to grant permission for the CDC to utilize their existing immunization programs to distribute these medications and medical devices.

3. State-Mandated Authorization for Hospitals

States imposed strict conditions on hospitals, necessitating prior authorization from the state and then from the CDC. These hospitals were further required to comply with both federal and state laws. Notably, at this point, the state became responsible for upholding the 14th Amendment Constitutional obligations. This meant that those who chose to accept the product should be treated in the same manner as those who refused. In cases where an individual's liberty or property was compromised due to their choice, the due process was meant to safeguard their rights. Hospitals, acting on behalf of the state government, were regarded as state actors, thereby obligated to uphold the same constitutional responsibilities as the state itself.

4. Hospitals' Contradictory Actions

Hospitals, after signing the CDC Contract, introduced mandates that contradicted the terms of the contract, particularly Section 12(a). The state's Director of Health and Human Services, or equivalent authority, was fully aware that these mandates violated the contract and the state's Federal Wide Assurance agreement.

5. State Attorney General's Knowledge

State attorneys general were cognizant of 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3, which reinforced the Supremacy Clause, making it clear that private employers had no lawful authority to interfere with an individual's choice. The use of the state's at-will employment doctrine as a means of interference was deemed unlawful.

6. Silence Amid Controversy

A striking aspect of this intricate scenario was the silence observed by key figures, including the State Director of Health and Human Services, hospital Chief Executive Officers, and State Attorneys General. It appeared as though they were banking on the notion that citizens were unaware of their legal rights and would yield to their abuse of power.

7. Legal and Ethical Implications

This situation raises several legal and ethical questions. Hospitals, for instance, could be accused of fraud if they billed the U.S. Government for employee vaccinations. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause and the explicit language of the PREP Act clearly prohibited hospitals and private employers from imposing mandatory conditions. Even 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(l) indicated that not even the Secretary of Health and Human Services had the authority to mandate participation. The Secretary was the sole authorized figure to establish conditions for access to unlicensed medical products.

8. Failures of Duty

The State Attorney General's failure to protect citizens' Equal Protection rights and provide Due Process when individuals were penalized for exercising their legal right to refuse is a matter of grave concern. Citizens found themselves deprived of the opportunity to sell their labor in the job market, all in the name of exercising a legitimate right granted by a valid act of Congress.

9. Legal Accountability

There is a pressing need for accountability in this complex situation. The State Director of Health and Human Services, hospital CEOs, and Chief Medical Officers could face criminal prosecution for violating a signed agreement with the CDC, causing severe physical and financial hardships and infringing upon Constitutional rights. This issue is further compounded by the fact that some State Attorneys General chose not to take action, claiming that there was nothing they could do when they possessed the power to protect their state's citizens. This scenario extends to all 50 U.S. states and territories and their respective Attorneys General.

10. Fundamental Rights Protected

This issue underscores a fundamental principle: no individual should be compelled to inject an unlicensed drug into their body as a condition for enjoying state privileges or benefits to which they are otherwise entitled. This principle remains unassailable by any Constitution, statute, treaty, or regulation.

In conclusion, the events described above reveal the intricacies of how state attorneys general, private employers, and hospitals navigated constitutional rights during the pandemic. This complex issue serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of safeguarding individual liberties and holding accountable those who seek to infringe upon them.