President Joe Biden, or more likely his handlers that pull the strings, imposed a controversial mandate on large and small employers to force vaccination for the Wuhan virus. Having been unable to get legislation through Congress, he decided to use Executive edict, thereby essentially writing legislation, which is the job of Congress.

This Presidential overreach has now gone before the Supreme Court and early indications are that it is not going well for the Administration.

The conservative majority on the court seems skeptical that law can essentially be written by Biden himself, avoiding Congress, by ordering OSHA, an agency that is a regulatory body for workplace safety, to enforce a medical mandate. It also seems that at least some justices do not believe OSHA has the power, under current law, to be imposing a mandate for vaccinations.

It is also becoming increasingly clear, to even those with little medical training, that those individuals who have been vaccinated both get and spread the virus. If that is true, what is the purpose of a mandate, even if the President has the authority to impose one? Listening to some of the comments from the judges, it is not clear they are well informed on a variety of virus issues. Some dialogue indicated that some were blissfully unaware that the vaccinated were spreading and becoming ill. Some unvaccinated individuals have already had the virus, and thus have more robust protection than vaccinated people. But the government only seems to recognize antibodies and T cells that result from vaccines and ignore those same cells and immune system mechanisms if created naturally. This is absurd.

There appears to be no logical medical reason or legal authority for imposing such a mandate. Rather it is largely a political move to satisfy the Democrat Party base, which ran on the lofty proposition that they could control the virus because they “had a plan” and the other guy supposedly did not. How is that working for ya?

Well, the plan is failing on a number of levels and it is obvious to anyone who is still reasonably alert. It is once again a central planning hammer, of one size, fits all medicine. The medical profession has moved from treating the patient to groveling before public health officials and politicians. 

Beyond the profound constitutional questions of avoiding the Congress and assuming police powers that rightfully belong to the states, the mandate has created additional collateral damage that goes well beyond violating the function of the Executive under the Constitution. Besides a serious blow to medical ethics,  they have recruited corporations to violate basic rights instead of the government doing it directly. And it would seem that some corporations, many highly beholden for subsidies and bailouts, are more than willing to play along with the attack on liberty.

Mandates and their enforcement violate personal liberty and the right to medical privacy. It introduces the question: how far into employee private affairs can an employer go, as a condition of employment? Since the vaccines do not stop the transmission of the virus to others, it is hard to argue a private mandate is in the general health interest of the workforce. However, it could be argued that vaccines reduce the severity and therefore the chance, and expense, of hospitalization. Since private companies subsidize healthcare and are concerned about a fully functioning workforce, they would have some legitimate interest in reducing potential health costs and absenteeism.

How far can you go in that direction? Smoking increases potential health care costs. So do drinking, bad driving,  a bad diet, and abortions. Does a company have a right to dictate these kinds of personal choices to employees? Where did my body, my life go to? Do you mean a society that endorses the idea that minors can undergo sex-change operations without parental consultation because “we all have personal autonomy with our bodies”, will allow employees to have private choices circumscribed by employers because it might reduce potential costs? Are we now serfs living on the manor, subject to the rules of the prince?

What if the vaccines are shown to have serious side effects that show up in the future? May an employee, forced by the condition of employment to take an experimental drug, sue the employer for damages? Should employers even be interfering in lifestyle and medical questions like this? Perhaps in the form of incentives such as gym memberships or reduced health insurance premium payments, they might wish to incentivize their workforce towards certain behaviors. But mandates, that if violated, result in termination?

Moreover, vaccines are not the ONLY way to reduce the severity of the virus and potential cost. Could employers demand that certain medications and therapeutics be taken by employees because taking them reduces the severity and the chance of hospitalization? Could you imagine Bank of America mandating that ivermectin be taken if an employee develops Covid, because it has been shown to reduce the severity, and thereby likely reduce costs? There would be justifiable outrage. Medication is a choice that should be made by the patient and his doctor.

It has also demonstrated that the Federal Government, by providing payments to medical companies and others, can use fear of financial retribution to coerce private companies to do their bidding. It can do this to defense contractors and others with direct contact with the Federal Government. In fact, since most large companies and universities, and even local schools receive at least some funding from the Federal Government, this use of financial intimidation sets another ugly precedent. That which the Federal government subsidizes, it should control.

Some of our corporations have now snuggled into bed with the Federal Government, such as the auto companies, airlines, and the big banks, all of which received bailouts of one form or another, that the relationship would likely bring a gleam to the eye of Benito Mussolini.

Such a wide range of medical companies may receive Medicare or Medicaid payments, it would seem to include the entire industry. Does it follow that this extends to employees who are not officers in the corporation? Does it extend to patients?

How else can one explain, for example, the Mayo Clinic dismissing 700 nurses, during a huge surge in the pandemic with the rapid spread of the Omicron variant? Could it be because they might get Medicare money, research money, and the like? It seems illogical, and just plain stupid, to fire medical workers when you have a surge in critically ill patients to care for. That is certainly not putting the patient’s interest first. It is putting money and the government first. This has tarnished the Mayo Clinic’s reputation with both its staff and its clients. In addition, imagine the cost that must be absorbed to re-hire and train new nurses up to the superior standards found at the Mayo clinic. Who eats those costs?

And, it begs this question: why do so many highly trained medical personnel choose not to be vaccinated?

Likewise firing military personnel when we face significant challenges from China, Russia, and Iran hardly seems the right thing to do to enhance combat readiness. However here, the government has more authority because they run the armed services, one of the few real responsibilities given to the Federal government by the Constitution. In addition, people voluntarily serve and agree to certain rules. That said, there are multiple examples now, of Naval ships having to abort their missions and stay in port because their crew of 100% vaccinated sailors are experiencing an outbreak of the virus. Just because you might have the power to coerce things in the military does not necessarily mean it is the correct policy.

Biden has repeatedly divided the country by attacking those who have chosen not to vaccinate, some on religious grounds, some on medical grounds, and many who have already had the virus, and thus have protection more thorough and longer-lasting than offered by the vaccine. He repeats the big lie that the unvaccinated are the cause of the continuation of the pandemic.

This is one of those rare occasions where the failure of a medical procedure is blamed on those who did not have it. You would think at some point the Administration would see the sheer idiocy of their policies. But, that may be wishful thinking.

We certainly hope the Supreme Court will block the Administration from further unconstitutional edicts, but our worry is they can’t entirely stop the Administration from wreaking damage on schools, universities, private companies, and others, fearful that money, if not law, will rule.