Categories
News

Please Comment on the OSHA “Rule” Mandating COVID Vaccination

Even though the 5th district court of appeals has issued a stay on implementing the OSHA vaccine mandate rule (pending litigation outcomes issued by the 6th district court), I encourage citizens to submit a comment before the December 5, 2021 deadline.

Here is the web link to access the rule description and comment form: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/05/2021-23643/covid-19-vaccination-and-testing-emergency-temporary-standard#open-comment

This is an opening statement you can use that includes the basics of the agency’s name, Federal Register docket number, and rule summary:

I am writing to object to the Federal Register ETS rule published under OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2021-0007 which states “The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is issuing an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers (100 or more employees) from the risk of contracting COVID-19 by strongly encouraging vaccination. Covered employers must develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or elect to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.”

These are some suggested points of comment. Please note that you don’t have to be an employee of a 100+ employee company to comment. The comment form allows attachments, if you have additional documents that support your comments.

(1) OSHA does not have constitutional authority to promulgate “rules” that have the effect of law, including enforcement provisions. The U.S. Constitution vests legislative authority SOLELY with Congress. This “rule” violates the separation of powers.

(2) There is no “emergency” from which workers need to be protected. COVID has been in circulation in the U.S. for almost two years, and cases have never been more numerous or deadly than the seasonal flu.

(3) Vaccinated workers can contract COVID and transmit the illness (the vaccine is not effective). Vaccination does NOT prevent the occurrence or spread of the disease. This proposed rule discriminates against unvaccinated workers when in fact vaccinated workers pose a threat of contagion to both vaccinated and unvaccinated workers.

(4) The rule totally ignores the fact that acquired immunity is superior to vaccine-stimulated immunity (employees who have had COVID don’t need to be vaccinated!) AND adverse health consequences may result if a person who already had COVID is then vaccinated for that illness.

(5) Employees, not the government, have 9th and 10th Amendment 9 constitutional rights to make personal health care choices and can decide for themselves whether a vaccine reduces the risk of COVID or instead poses unacceptable risk of adverse impacts. It is unconstitutional to mandate a medical procedure. Citizens should be free to rely on their God-given natural immunity.

(6) Masks are ineffective at preventing spread of COVID because the masks are more porous than the virus particles. https://c19science.info/COVID-19_Masks.pdf

(7) This rule does not consider the actual workplace circumstances of a business. Its one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate and evidence of its being discriminatory. Some work sites may have only a few people in an office or work-from-home arrangements, yet be part of a larger company. Those employees are essentially self-isolated and not at risk of infecting others or getting COVID themselves.

(8) It is outside OSHA’s authority to regulate exposure to “disease” through vaccination procedures. The courts have granted vaccination jurisdiction to the states.

(9) The three COVID vaccines available in the U.S. are experimental products under emergency use authorization. The EUA statute provides anyone the right to refuse a EUA product.

(10) COVID tests may also be EUA products, and employees have the right to refuse EUA tests. PCR testing has furthermore been shown to yield grossly inaccurate results – i.e., 97% false positives.

(11) This “rule” is coercive and violates the Nuremberg Code. Such a rule has no place in our constitutional Republic!

(12) This rule is discriminatory. Just laws apply equally to all persons, and do not exempt Congress (or the Postal Service … or illegal immigrants).

Executive agency rule making is unconstitutional because it by-passes the legislative branch (Congress) that is authorized to craft legislation as elected representatives of We the People.

Our ONLY opportunity to speak out about executive branch rules that have the effect of law is if we comment on Federal Register notices! Please inundate OSHA with citizen input by December 5. Thank you.

Your comments on this rule may help establish precedent to abolish the other mandates as well.

Gem State Patriot News