• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden to require all federal employees to be vaccinated

Workplace safety does not rise to the level of Constitutional right.

Sure it does. Where did you hear otherwise? The freedom of speech does not mean you can yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

There is no such thing as unlimited rights, even constitutional ones.
 
No one has the freedom to endanger the lives and health of others.

You know the old definition of freedom: your freedom to swing your arms about freely stops where someone else’s nose starts.
I can certainly see that argument being made.

As I can also see, requiring a drug injected into your body that the FDA has not approved yet.
 
I can certainly see that argument being made.

As I can also see, requiring a drug injected into your body that the FDA has not approved yet.

not quite true. It has been approved for emergency use. So approval was given.

"The HHS Secretary declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, effective March 27, 2020. The EUAs subsequently issued by FDA are listed in the table below this blue box.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-polic"y-framework/emergency-use-authorization#covid19euas
 
not quite true. It has been approved for emergency use. So approval was given.

"The HHS Secretary declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, effective March 27, 2020. The EUAs subsequently issued by FDA are listed in the table below this blue box.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-polic"y-framework/emergency-use-authorization#covid19euas
Understood, is working a fed government job an emergency use?
 
I can certainly see that argument being made.

As I can also see, requiring a drug injected into your body that the FDA has not approved yet.

This is nothing new. Emergency use authorization has long precedent and strict criteria.

 
Understood, is working a fed government job an emergency use?

Of course it is. You want the department of defense, state department, the CIA, the FBI, and the pentagon closed all down for the foreseeable future?
 
I can certainly see that argument being made.

As I can also see, requiring a drug injected into your body that the FDA has not approved yet.
A foolish technicality that everyone recognizes as such. These vaccines are as certain to gain full FDA approval as the sun is going to come up in the East.

That "but it's not fully FDA approved" nonsense is just pathetic.
 
Of course it is. You want the department of defense, state department, the CIA, the FBI, and the pentagon closed all down for the foreseeable future?
Not every government worker has been classified as necessary. Some yes.
 
Not every government worker has been classified as necessary. Some yes.

Employers can have any requirement they want. They can require them to come in as Elvis impersonators. You have a problem with that?
 
A foolish technicality that everyone recognizes as such. These vaccines are as certain to gain full FDA approval as the sun is going to come up in the East.

That "but it's not fully FDA approved" nonsense is just pathetic.
There is no nonsense in my post. If it was as sure as the sun coming up in the east, then it would already be approved.

But that is irrelevant to the point I am making.

It is currently not approved. Is it lawful of the government to require an unapproved vaccine as a component of keeping your job.

If you are thinking that the conversation is over, I would ask you to wait and see if any federal employee files a grievance upon termination or suspension for violating this rule.
 
Thank God I retired in 2016. This is a good way to get some of the government long haulers to retire
 
Employers can have any requirement they want. They can require them to come in as Elvis impersonators. You have a problem with that?
As long as EVERYONE has to come dressed like Elvis
 
Get your shot or find another job... Pro Tip: You will be seeing more and more employers requiring this... Nobody got time for the games any longer...
panthers (former jets) quarterback darnold was proudly proclaiming that he did not get his vaccination

then the NFL advised the teams that they would forfeit games where the unvaccinated became infected preventing the game from proceeding ... and that the affected players would not be paid for that cancelled game

darnold now refuses to state whether he was vaccinated or not, instead insisting he made his own personal decision about it

employees are now seeing how expensive it can be to refuse to get the shot
 
No, not everyone has to get vaccinated. They still have a choice

I thought we were talking about federal government mandates for its employees to get vaccinated. They will not have a choice.
 
I thought we were talking about federal government mandates for its employees to get vaccinated. They will not have a choice.
Of course they do. They can say NO
 
Biden requiring people provide their papers to work, I am shocked I say, aside from 77million voters who could have seen this coming
The number of trump voters is kinda like fish story, it grows every time it's told.
 
This could be interesting. Either there is a right to privacy in medical matters, or there isn't.

If the administration goes through with this, they could wind up overturning Roe v Wade.
How is any right to privacy implicated here?
 
Back
Top Bottom