Select Page
Posted via Jan Wondra | May 13, 2024
Federal Court Rules University of Colorado Vaccine Policies ‘Motivated by Animosity’
Last week, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the U. S. Court of Appeals for the U. S. The U. S. Department of Homeland Security overturned a lower court decision and issued a 55-page ruling saying that policies at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine denying exemptions to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate were “fully motivated. “” and unconstitutional under the provisions of the First Amendment.
The original mandate had been rejected by education staff and academics after a vaccine was developed in reaction to the global COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit was settled through the Thomas More Society, a conservative nonprofit law firm founded in Chicago. In an appeal filed in March 2022, the company represented 17 professors and academics who claimed the university refused their honest and deeply devout objections preventing them from getting vaccinated.
The University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Campus in Aurora, Colorado, is home to the University of Colorado’s six fitness science-related schools and colleges. In September 2021, the university enacted and enforced a policy that all students, employees, and others “who lately or possibly in the long term access any CU Anschutz facility or participate in a CU Anschutz program” or otherwise interact with members of the Anschutz network “regardless of location” will have to “be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with a vaccine that has been approved through the World Fitness Organization. “
In addition to noting the devout animosity, the Court found that the university’s Anschutz Medical Campus vaccine mandates granted “exemptions for some religions, but not for others, due to differences in their devout doctrines” and granted “secular exemptions on more favorable terms than devout exemptions. “”exemptions,” which are illegal.
The court also reaffirmed the First Amendment’s precept that the government monitor the sincerity of employees’ devout ideals by judging the legitimacy of those doctrines. The court also found that the University’s mandates violated “clearly established” constitutional rights.
“The University of Colorado has shown little regard for COVID-devoted staff and academics, and the Court of Appeals has now made clear what we have been fighting for for nearly 3 years: the University acted with ‘devout animosity’ and blatantly violated the basic devout freedoms of those brave physical care providers and academics,” said Peter Breen, executive vice president and litigation leader for the Thomas More Society.
“These medical providers were hailed as heroes because they bravely served on the front lines during the worst of the pandemic, yet when their devout principles clashed with the ideals of the University of Colorado bureaucrats, those heroes were brutally pushed aside,” he added.
“With this ruling in favor of our clients, the Court of Appeal has made it clear that believers are not second-class citizens,” he added. “They deserve full respect and coverage of the U. S. Constitution in the lax exercise of their religion. By illegally and intrusively investigating the devout ideals of our students, the university made price judgments that not only reeked of devout bigotry, but also violated our clients’ constitutional rights as well as fundamental decency.
The Court of Appeals’ ruling highlighted express moments of what it characterized as discrimination, adding the following:
. . . the Administration says that “it is ‘morally acceptable’ for Roman Catholics to be vaccinated against COVID-19” and that any Roman Catholic objection to the COVID-19 vaccine is a “personal belief” and not a “religious belief. “Accordingly, the Administration would not grant waivers to Catholic applicants under the Sept. 1 policy. (Diversion Notice, p. 5. )
. . . the Administration declined to approve any waivers for Buddhist applicants under the Sept. 1 policy. The Administration would also not approve any exemptions for members of the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. At the same time, the Administration has admitted that it will approve programs for practitioners of determined and privileged religions, such as Christian Scientists. (Slippage Notice, p. 30. )
… A government policy that grants an exemption “for medical reasons” but denies the same exemption “for devout reasons” is not enforceable, as it “devalues devalued devout reasons. . . ». . . judging them to be of lesser importance than non-religious reasons. On the face of it, the Sept. 24 policy makes a value judgment in favor of secular motivations, as it imposes a lower bar for denying religious exemptions.
As part of its Sept. 1, 2021, policy, the university said it would only accept applications for religious exemptions from those whose faith teaches that all vaccines are banned. In addition, those seeking exemptions had to justify their religious ideals. interrogation. As part of its Sept. 24, 2021, policy, the University completely excluded scholars from religious exemptions and provided medical exemptions on more generous terms than religious exemptions.
Read the May 7, 2024, judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Jane Does 1-11 and John Does 1, 3-7 v. The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, et. Al. aquí [https: //uploads-ssl. webflow. com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/663bd07a66d645d57f832e4a_010111045465. pdf].
Ark Valley Voice is a free, independent online news media platform. Producing unbiased, fact-based investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money, and hard work. If you appreciate our work, please support us with a donation. Thank you!