A Department of Justice (DOJ) memorandum claims that government and private corporations can mandate that employees be vaccinated against the CCP virus, also known as the novel coronavirus, even though federal law specifies otherwise.
An 18-page memorandum was issued July 27 to support President Joe Biden’s direction that federal employees be required to be vaccinated or face stringent testing and masking requirements turns around the interpretation of Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and its stipulations, regarding drugs that are issued under the emergency use authorization (EUA), which enables the Food and Drug Administration to approve experimental drugs to be administered under dire public health circumstances.
Addressed to the deputy counsel for the president, the memorandum states, “You have asked whether the ‘option to accept or refuse’ condition of Section 564 prohibits entities from imposing such vaccination requirements while the only available vaccines for COVID-19 remain subject to EUAs.
“We conclude, consistent with FDA’s interpretation, that it does not. This language in Section 564 specifies only that certain information be provided to potential vaccine recipients and does not prohibit entities from imposing vaccination requirements.”
The three anti-CCP virus vaccines are authorized only under the EUA provision, and that’s why the DOJ memorandum is completely wrong, according to Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based public interest law firm that specializes in religious freedom litigation under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Liberty Counsel announced last week that it will represent a group of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who object to the government’s requirement that they be vaccinated against the virus.
Liberty Counsel spokeswoman Holly Meade told The Epoch Times on July 30: “We are inundated with people asking for help. We consider it a great privilege to lead the way in this fight. This is a life-and-death situation, and people need our help.”
Liberty Counsel claims in its analysis of the DOJ memorandum that it “is fundamentally flawed and … cannot be read to permit the government or private entities to mandate an experimental product approved merely for emergency use. In fact, the memorandum even admits multiple times that the EUA law and the FDA require the ‘option to accept or refuse.’”
“None of the COVID shots are approved or licensed by the FDA. They come under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), which means they cannot be forced or required,” Liberty Counsel states in a scathing statement issued July 29.
“On page 1 of the DOJ memo, and many times thereafter, the DOJ correctly states that Section 564 of the federal law directs the FDA ‘to the extent practicable’ and as the FDA ‘finds necessary or appropriate … to impose ‘[a]appropriate’ conditions on each EUA.
“The memo continues: ‘Some of these conditions are designed to ensure that recipients of the product are “informed” of certain things, including “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”’
“The memo also states on page 1 that since December 2020, the FDA granted EUAs for COVID shots. ‘In each of these authorizations, FDA imposed the “option to accept or refuse” condition.’ The memo then correctly notes that the FDA Fact Sheet states, ‘It is your choice to receive or not receive’ the COVID shots.
“Despite this clear ‘option to accept or refuse’ language, and despite admitting the FDA has publicly affirmed this ‘option to accept or refuse,’ the DOJ memo says it doesn’t mean you have the option to refuse.
“The ‘option to accept or refuse,’ the DOJ asserts, is met merely by telling people they have the ‘option to accept or refuse,’ and, once told, people can be forced to take these shots. This is akin to interpreting the Miranda Rights to mean once you have been told ‘You have the option to remain silent,’ then you can be forced to talk! This is absurd.”
Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver said in his firm’s analysis that “in addition to the plain language of the EUA law and the FDA, employees and students have rights under state and federal laws, including the First Amendment free exercise clause, to refuse injecting a drug into their bodies.
“It is shocking that the DOJ intentionally deceived the public with its lawless, result-oriented memorandum. We will not allow the law and the people to be trampled by employers, schools or this administration.”
DOJ officials didn’t immediately respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment on Liberty Counsel’s analysis.