The Los Angeles Unified School District rescinded its COVID-19 jab mandate for employees in a 6-1 vote late Tuesday.
The unethical, immoral, and unscientific mandate went into effect August 2021.
“In light of evolving medical data and in consultation with local health authorities, the District has revised its vaccination policy as many other county, state and federal entities have done,” the district’s Board of Education announced, according to NBC Los Angeles.
“While we encourage everyone to stay up-to-date on all vaccinations, we will no longer require employees and contractors, vendors, volunteers and charter schools to be vaccinated against COVID-19,” the statement continued.
LAUSD announced it will no longer require its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.https://t.co/QBBGjAVqOA
— NBC Los Angeles (@NBCLA) September 27, 2023
Oral arguments were heard last week in the 9th circuit court of appeals as some employees sued the district.
Los Angeles Unified School District, the 2nd largest in the nation, still has a Covid vaccine mandate for its employees.
Last week , oral arguments were heard in the 9th circuit court of appeals as some LAUSD employees sue.
One judge calling the mandate “irrational”.
— Stella Escobedo (@StellaEscoTV) September 19, 2023
NBC Los Angeles reports:
In a lawsuit suit brought Jan. 10, 2023, more than 20 current and former school Police Department members alleged that science shows that being vaccinated against COVID-19 does not prevent someone from acquiring the virus and that the district disregarded religious beliefs and enforced its vaccination policy to the detriment of the plaintiffs.
The district’s Board of Education also approved a COVID vaccine mandate for students in 2021, when alarming infection and hospitalization rates led many school districts and local government jurisdictions to impose vaccine mandates.
That mandate also faced legal challenges, however. Enforcement was delayed until at least July 2023, and the mandate never took effect.
GOOD NEWS: “… there has not been a single COVID vaccine mandate imposed in a public school district in the country that has stuck. This feat would not have been possible without grassroots activism + lawsuits.” @maryhollandnyc #TheDefender https://t.co/Z9xfHxnAED
— Children’s Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) September 28, 2023
“It is a huge credit to the health freedom movement as a whole that there has not been a single COVID vaccine mandate imposed in a public school district in the country that has stuck. This feat would not have been possible without grassroots activism and lawsuits,” said Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland, J.D.
The Defender writes:
Leslie Manookian, president and founder of HFDF, agreed the vote was “another huge victory” for the health freedom movement.
Still, she said, the district’s choice to rescind the order now — more than two years after it was announced and after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admitted COVID-19 vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission — is a “cynical attempt to evade justice as the judges signaled they believed LAUSD’s vaccine mandate was irrational.”
HFDF provides legal representation for LAUSD employees negatively affected by the vaccine mandate. On Nov. 2, 2021, HFDF and LAUSD employees with California Educators for Medical Freedom sued top officials of the LAUSD, including board members, alleging the district’s vaccine mandate violated employees’ 14th Amendment “rights of personal autonomy, self-determination, bodily integrity, and the right to reject medical treatment.”
After a U.S. district judge on Sept 2., 2022, dismissed the case, the plaintiffs appealed.
HFDF attorneys on Sept. 14 presented oral arguments before a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing the case should be allowed to proceed. The panel’s decision is still pending.Advertisement
According to an HFDF statement relating to the hearing, one of the three judges was “shocked” and “floored” by LAUSD’s ongoing COVID-19 vaccine employee policy, and the district’s “irrational” justification for the policy.