Military chaplains, Navy SEALS press courts to cancel consequences of refusing jab
Lawsuits filed on behalf of U.S. Navy SEALS and military chaplains say COVID vaccine mandates violate their rights, as the Biden administration continues coercing members of the military to submit to mRNA injections. This, despite a new Congressional bill signed into law on December 23, 2022, that required Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to rescind the COVID vaccine requirement for members of the Armed Forces within 30 days.
Alleged rescission
Austin acknowledged his need to comply with the law in a January 10th memorandum, stating that he rescinds his earlier memorandum mandating the shot, which forced more than 8,400 troops out of the military for refusing the jab. Austin added, though, that while complying with the requirement to cancel the mandate, he is leaving other vaccine policies in place, policies that are also coercive.
“Other standing Departmental policies, procedures and processes regarding immunizations remain in effect. These include the ability of commanders to consider, as appropriate, the individual immunization status of personnel in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions, including when vaccination is required for travel to, or entry into, a foreign nation.” [Emphases added].
Many service members are therefore referring to this memorandum as Austin's “alleged rescission,” after which unvaccinated personnel still face the following difficulties, according to servicemen who have spoken with Frontline News:
- No back pay to those whose salaries were diminished due to the vaccine order (the DoD apparently considers the vaccination order to have been legal when it was in force).
- Sixth Fleet restrictions barring sailors from taking liberty in ports of call
- Army restrictions blocking PCSs (permanent changes of station) to new assignments because flags on their records have not been removed.
- Partial travel ban continues
- No reparations for dismissals, denials of promotions, missed courses and training, negative OERs (Officer Evaluation Reports) or being warehoused (forced away from the front and into logistical jobs offering less valuable experience) and/or double slotted (forced to carry out two job functions normally given to two different individuals).
Instead, Austin intends to merely remove “adverse actions” from personnel records and invited discharged military members to petition their review boards to “request a correction to their personnel records, including . . . the characterization of their discharge.”
Going nowhere
One member of the Armed Services offered this summation of Austin's new jab policy in a statement to Frontline News. "Sure, you don't have to vaccinate, but if you're not vaccinated, you will not be doing anything and your career will eventually come to an end."
Chaplains march on
A group of 31 military chaplains therefore rejected the DOD's interpretation of Congress' ban on vaccine mandates and kept open a class action lawsuit against the military and public health agencies the chaplains had brought in May 2022. The suit, which is currently on hold by an order of dismissal, argues that the vaccine mandate violated their rights to proper religious accommodations under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). UncoverDC describes the deeper issues the suit addresses.
The lawsuit provides a fulsome review of the blatant, concerning changes in definitions and procedural rules to achieve politically driven agendas and goals that seemingly ignore service members’ most basic constitutional rights.
UncoverDC quotes Chaplain Robert Nelson describing the “dilemma of conscience” the mandate put him in.
I cannot support vaccinations that goes [sic] against my beliefs. To do so, would create a dilemma of conscience and create moral injury which would make me ineffective in my role as a chaplain since I would be violating my principles by participating in a rite, ritual, or ceremony against my beliefs. . . . I never imagined that I would be in a personal war for my career with the military forcing me to choose between my faith in God and an immoral injection. This is a loss for airmen and our nation.
No longer facing discharge for their approach to the mRNA injections, Nelson and others have decided to go forward with the suit requesting that the court reconsider its dismissal of their case in light of the latest events. If their request is denied, they are prepared to appeal the decision in the hope of removing all repercussions for opposing the shots, something Austin does not appear prepared to do in the absence of judicial or congressional intervention.
Still a fan
The AP reports that Austin remains wed to the mRNA injections and continues to promote them, the views of Congress notwithstanding.
Austin’s memo was unapologetic in his continued support for the vaccine, and his belief that the mandate kept the force healthy and able to protect America. The Pentagon’s vaccine efforts, he said, “will leave a lasting legacy in the many lives we saved, the world-class force we have been able to field, and the high level of readiness we have maintained, amidst difficult public health conditions.”
Austin did not cite any scientific papers in support of his contentions that the mRNA shots saved “many lives”.
Navy SEALS march on
Like the military chaplains, a group of Navy SEALS decided to press ahead with their lawsuit, now in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, against the DOD. Their suit, too, claims that Austin's response is not sufficient to protect their rights. The Telegraph reports that the SEALS' argument that judicial relief is still needed appeared to be well received by at least one judge on the panel.
“Is there any assurance on the record, that there will be no deployment decisions based on vaccination?” Judge James Ho, one of three judges hearing the case asked Department of Justice lawyer Casen Ross.
Ross said such questions were speculative and not at issue in the case before the court. Ho and Judge Kyle Duncan noted that the administration had only reluctantly ended the military mandate after December congressional action . . .
Interestingly, DOD lawyers defend the continued prejudice against the unvaccinated by pointing to how many other vaccines are forced on soldiers.
Military leaders have long argued that to maintain unit health and troop readiness, troops have for decades been required to get as many as 17 vaccines, particularly those who are deploying overseas.
Attorneys for the unvaccinated SEALS argued that the DOD's discrimination sets up a class system.
Navy personnel argued . . . that Austin’s memo and other Defense Department actions show that the Navy still intends to treat unvaccinated personnel “like second-class citizens because of their religious beliefs.”
Worse than before
According to the SEALS, that class system is even more difficult to break out of now, in light of Austin's latest directives, than before Congress attempted to protect them.
The Navy SEALS filed their lawsuit . . . describing what they saw as a cumbersome 50-step process to obtain religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccine. Their lawyers have called [it] a “sham” with applications being “categorically denied”. . . .
Heather Hacker, an attorney for the Navy personnel, said the situation could be seen as worse now for them now that the older mandate policy has been rescinded, because current policy does not provide for a sailor’s religious objections to the vaccine to be considered when deployment or assignment decisions are made.
“We’re going from a 50-step process to a zero-step process?” Duncan asked.
“Exactly, your honor,” Hacker replied.
