Firefighters4Freedom Foundation, a California non-profit foundation, has filed with and on behalf of 539 Los Angeles City Firefighters a complaint to block the City’s mandatory Covid vaccination ordinance.  The complaint can be read here.

The introduction to the complaint is as follows:


  1. The Covid-19 pandemic has been running for more than a year and a half. For the majority of that time, schools were shut. Businesses were forced to close. Even government agencies operated “remotely,” meeting by phone or videoconference to conduct the public’s business.
  2. But while others were inside protecting their own health, firefighters stepped to the frontlines of the pandemic, selflessly protecting citizens of this City. For their trouble, 1079 Los Angeles City firefighters either contracted or were impacted by Covid—one-third of the entire force. Aside from all else written below, these men and women have earned the right—through their willing acceptance of Covid risk in helping others—to have a say in whether to take the experimental Covid vaccines into their own bodies; particularly where: (a) reasonable accommodations clearly exist for a middle-ground solution between privacy rights and public rights, and (b) current evidence suggests current vaccines may actually exacerbate spread of the Delta variant of the Covid virus, not stop it.
  3. Notwithstanding, Firefighters are now pawns in a political chess match, ordered by thirteen politicians on the Los Angeles City Council to inject themselves with an experimental vaccine–over their objections–or lose their jobs.
  4. As will be shown at the time of trial and in preliminary hearings, the City does not have the Constitutional authority to force anyone to take an experimental vaccine against his or her will without considering, and granting where possible, reasonable accommodations for those who chose to not take the vaccine. The City does not have that power as an employer. It does not have that power as the sovereign. It does not have that power under normal times, nor during an emergency.
  5. And, to be clear, Covid-19 no longer poses the immediate threat to that it may have posed last spring. Covid data for Los Angeles County posted Sept. 11, 2021, showed a 37% decrease in new cases and a 26.14% decrease in new hospital admissions. Further, as of September 12, 2021, Los Angeles Metro System returned to pre-pandemic service levels. Even the Governor has rescinded 90 percent of his emergency Covid orders. There is no basis for the City’s rushed and ill-conceived mandate.
  6. The City’s vaccine mandate violates the Firefighters’ right to privacy under the California Constitution. The California Constitution provides an explicit constitutional privacy right (compared to the implicit privacy right under the federal constitution) that has been applied to invalidate similar intrusions of a person’s bodily integrity. To satisfy the California Constitution, the City must consider and offer reasonable accommodations as a middle ground between individual freedoms and collective rights. It did not do that. Instead, the City Council viewed this sensitive personal issue through the lens of partisan politics, saying they “want[ ] a vaccinated workforce.” The California Constitution requires far more than that before invading the bodily integrity of thousands of public employees, who the public depends on.
  7. Even if the City had the power to order forced vaccinations of its employees or residents, (which it does not) it must show that forced vaccination is the least restrictive way to mitigate the effects of Covid-19. The City cannot show that because the evidence does not support that finding. In fact, there is mounting evidence that the vaccine does not prevent the virus from spreading and may only provide protection against serious illness, a benefit that does little, if anything, for firefighters. Thus, the vaccine mandate is both unnecessary and ineffective in protecting the public.
  8. These are not trivial concerns. The Covid-19 vaccines may—or may not—be safe for most people. We won’t know if they are safe until, at minimum, the 20 primary clinical trials underway to answer this very question are completed and time has passed to assess long-term effects.
  9. As of August 31, 2021, 477,447 adverse reactions have been reported to the Department of Health and Human Services, many in otherwise healthy people (https://VAERS.hhs.gov). These statistics include 6,112 deaths, 7,829 life threatening illnesses and 28,035 hospitalizations. The people of Los Angeles cannot afford to put their firefighters at additional health risk when the force is already depleted and inadequately staffed. The people of Los Angeles cannot afford to lose the large percentage of their firefighters that the City has threatened to fire if they do not get a Covid shot, especially during the peak of fire season.
  10. Firefighters4Freedom brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief to declare the City’s vaccine mandate unlawful and to enjoin the City from enforcing it.


The Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System “VAERS Data” is maintained by the US Dept. of Health & Human Services (https://VAERS.hhs.gov). A copy of the actual VAERS reports for COVID vaccines showing death or serious injury following a COVID shot, with reported detail, can be downloaded here.  Totals on the VAERS dataset as of August 31, 2021 are:

    1. DIED = 6112
    3. HOSPITALIZED = 28,035

The 6,112 people who died after COVID vaccinations are not just dry statistics sacrificing themselves for the greater good of society—nor should we ever think of them in such a disrespectful way.  These were living human beings who took a COVID shot—then died. And while causation can only be proven in each specific case, if at all, an obvious correlation is unavoidable: certain people were alive, they took a COVID shot, they died shortly thereafter.

A perusal through the records of the 6,112 reported deaths and 7,829 reported life-threatening illnesses following COVID vaccinations reveals truly heartbreaking stories. These are people who suffered—and died—after taking a COVID injection.  Here are just 26 samples, culled from the 5,718 deaths, 7,213 life-threatening illnesses and 25,128 hospitalization adverse reports that followed recent COVID vaccinations in this country, as reported in the VAERS database:

(1)          VAERS_ID: 1007371
AGE_YRS: 62.0
iii.           DIED: Yes
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Called PCP, from the note: I got my shot on Jan 19. But last Friday I have been down with a horrible flu. I’m wearing diapers because of uncontrollable diarrhea. I can’t leave my sofa to walk over to my desk because I’ll be so out of breath. I have a cough that produces a pink or gold Phelm I have dry mouth. I have no appetite I’m so weak and have lost 15 pounds. Don’t know what to do. My next Covid is shot is feb 11 Called employer on 2/3/21 but hung up. Tried calling multiple times to follow up. In triage she stated she had a COVID test scheduled and had spoken with her PCP. COVID test through PCP: 2/4/21 She passed away the night of 2/4/21”

(2)          VAERS_ID: 0944595
DIED:  Yes
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Cardiac arrest within 1 hour Patient had the second vaccine approximately 2 pm on Tuesday Jan 12th He works at the extended care community and was in good health that morning with no complaints. He waited 10-15 minutes at the vaccine admin site and then told them he felt fine and was ready to get back to work. He then was found unresponsive at 3 pm within an hour of the 2nd vaccine. EMS called immediately worked on him 30 minutes in field then 30 minutes at ER was able to put him on life support yet deemed Brain dead 1-14-21 and pronounced dead an hour or so later”

(3)          VAERS_ID: 1006168
AGE_YRS: 58.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “The patient, who was a pharmacist, developed fatigue and shortness of breath hours after receiving vaccine. Two days later, on01/28/2021, the patient went to local urgent care for worsening shortness of breath and was referred to Hospital for worsening dyspnea and hypoxia. The patient was admitted to the hospital We was found to have bilateral pulmonary infiltrates and treated for pneumonia with Rocephin and azithromycin. He was tested for COVID-19 multiple times, but each of the results were negative. Despite the negative results, there was high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 and the patient was started on Remdesivir and Decadron. The patient’s oxygen requirements continued to worsen and the patient was transferred to another facility for higher level of care. There his hypoxia worsened and he required mechanical ventilation. Patient then developed hypotension and required vasopressors for blood pressure support. Furthermore, patient developed acute renal failure requiring hemodialysis. Despite mechanical ventilation with FiO2 100%, and for vasopressors, patient clinically deteriorated and family decided to palliatively extubate on 02/05/2021.”

(4)          VAERS_ID: 0996156
AGE_YRS: 58.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Client came to nursing station about 2pm to report she “was not feeling well”. Nurses took vital signs, then referred her to thevaccination clinic that was onsite. She was observed by vaccination team for a period of time. She reported shoulder pain radiating into shoulder blade in arm vaccine was received. Vaccination team offered ice pack to her, observed for a period of time, and released back to work. About 10pm that evening, she sent a text to another coworker that her pain was “off the charts” and that she had pain covering her whole left side of her body. She did not come to work in the morning and did not contact work. Well being check was performed at approximately 9am on 2/2/2021 and she was found dead in her home. 911 was immediately called and authorities took over the scene.”

(5)          VAERS_ID: 0960841
AGE_YRS: 23.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Patient developed 104.4 temp approximately 48 hours after being given the vaccine. I treated him with antibiotics, IV fluids, cooling methods. CXR does show a new right perihilar infiltrate. However, his fever came down within the next 24-48 hours. Unfortunately, he suffered a cardiac arrest on 1/21/21 in the early morning and expired.”

(6)          VAERS_ID: 0986901
AGE_YRS: 33.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Patient received vaccine uneventfully with no acute concerns. Left clinic and by report went out with friends. Spoke to father onphone at or around 9:00 pm. Failed to show up to work and was found dead at home. Other details pending.”

(7)          VAERS_ID: 0979101
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “cardiac arrest – no warning signs”

(8)          VAERS_ID: 0939845
AGE_YRS: 88.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Three hours after receiving COVID 19 vaccination, Patient oxygen level decreased to a critical level and went into cardiac arrest.Staff performed full code but was unable to bring back patient from cardiac arrest.”

(9)          VAERS_ID: 0921768
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Vaccine received at about 0900 on 01/04/2021 at her place of work, Medical Center, where she was employed as a housekeeper. About one hour after receiving the vaccine she experienced a hot flash, nausea, and feeling like she was going to pass out after she had bent down. Later at about 1500 hours she appeared tired and lethargic, then a short time later, at about 1600 hours, upon arrival to a friends home she complained of feeling hot and having difficulty breathing. She then collapsed, then when medics arrived, she was still breathing slowly then went into cardiac arrest and was unable to be revived.”

(10)        VAERS_ID: 0940955
AGE_YRS: 66.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Cardiac Arrest; Patient was found pulseless and breathless 20 minutes following the vaccine administration …”

(11)        VAERS_ID: 0950057
AGE_YRS: 49.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Patient suffered a cardiac arrest and was unable to give details about her symptoms. Per husband, patient did not complain of any symptoms after vaccine administration. She began seizing without warning which was complicated by cardiac arrest of uncertain etiology”

(12)        VAERS_ID: 0965564
AGE_YRS: 58.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Cardiac arrest”

(13)        VAERS_ID: 0979990
AGE_YRS: 63.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “sudden cardiac arrest”

(14)        VAERS_ID: 0994913
AGE_YRS: 48.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “patient passed away 2 days after vaccine. patient had temperature, nausea, and vomiting after vaccine.”

(15)        VAERS_ID: 1000228
AGE_YRS: 40.0
SYMPTON_TEXT: “dead; Collapsed; bnt162b2 was given to patient with immunocompromised w/ reportable conditions”

(16)        VAERS_ID: 1006662
AGE_YRS: 51.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Pt had 2nd vaccine, went home and started having “cramping” in all of her muscles. It became bad enough that she was taken to local ED where she then started coughing up blood, required intubation and about 6 hrs later, died.”

(17)        VAERS_ID: 0996086
AGE_YRS: 55.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Pt received vaccine on 7 jan. 2021 Twelve days later, on 19 January 2021, Pt developed symptoms of COVID (cough, sore throat, fever, myalgias), on 20 Jan, pt admitted to hospital for worsening symptoms. Pt tested positive for COVID 19. Pt admitted to ICU where pt had complicated hospital course to include ARDS secondary to COVID pneumonia, nonSTEMI, with biventricular heart failure, on multiple pressor, rhabdomyolysis with acute kidney injury, requiring CRRT. Pt was in hospital for 10 days; he passed away on 31 Jan 2021.”

(18)        VAERS_ID: 1006416
AGE_YRS: 53.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Patient died of a heart attack on 1/31/21, 2.5 weeks after vaccination”

(19)        VAERS_ID: 1011834
AGE_YRS: 62.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “patient passed away within 60 days of receiving COVID vaccine series”

(20)        VAERS_ID: 1001488
AGE_YRS: 60.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Patient died several days after receiving the second dose of the vaccine. See additional information sent. An autopsy has been performed and results are pending.”

(21)        VAERS_ID: 0992884
AGE_YRS: 57.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “The next morning after vaccine, patient ran a fever, vomited, and was very tired. Mom laid her down to sleep and when she checked later, patient had passed away.”

(22)        VAERS_ID: 0939270
AGE_YRS: 48.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Sudden cardiac death”

(23)        VAERS_ID: 0934539
AGE_YRS: 68.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Patient received COVID-19 (Moderna) vaccine from the Health Department on afternoon of January 8, 2021 and went to sleep approximately 2300 that night. Was found unresponsive in bed the following morning and pronounced dead at 1336 on January 9, 2021”

(24)        VAERS_ID: 0938118
AGE_YRS: 51.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT:” on 1/8/2021 17:30 patient taken to ER, cerebellar hemorrhage, stroke, aneurysm”

(25)        VAERS_ID: 0933739
AGE_YRS: 54.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Staff member checked on her at 3am and patient stated that she felt like she couldn’t breathe. 911 was called and taken to the hospital. While in the ambulance, patient coded. Patient was given CPR and “brought back”. Once at the hospital, patient was placed on a ventilator and efforts were made to contact the guardian for end of life decisions. Two EEGs were given to determine that patient had no brain activity. Guardian, made the decision to end all life saving measures. Patient was taken off the ventilator on 1/9/2021 and passed away at 1:30am on 1/10/2021. The initial indication from the ICU doctor was the patient had a mucus plug that she couldn’t clear.”

(26)        VAERS_ID: 0924464
AGE_YRS: 61.0
SYMPTOM_TEXT: “coughing up blood, significant hemoptysis — > cardiac arrest. started day after vaccine but likely related to ongoing progression of lung cancer”

To summarize the VAERS data, the adverse reports following a COVID Vaccination show 6,112 deaths and 7,829 life-threatening illnesses following COVID vaccinations, including these examples taken from above:

–              VAERS_ID: 0944595: SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Cardiac arrest within 1 hour Patient had the second vaccine approximately 2 pm on Tuesday Jan 12th He works at the extended care community and was in good health that morning with no complaints. He waited 10-15 minutes at the vaccine admin site and then told them he felt fine and was ready to get back to work. He then was found unresponsive at 3 pm within an hour of the 2nd vaccine.”

–              VAERS_ID: 0960841: SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Patient developed 104.4 temp approximately 48 hours after being given the vaccine. I treated him with antibiotics, IV fluids, cooling methods. CXR does show a new right perihilar infiltrate. However, his fever came down within the next 24-48 hours. Unfortunately, he suffered a cardiac arrest on 1/21/21 in the early morning and expired.”

–              VAERS_ID: 1006662: SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Pt had 2nd vaccine, went home and started having “cramping” in all of her muscles. It became bad enough that she was taken to local ED where she then started coughing up blood, required intubation and about 6 hrs later, died.”

–              VAERS_ID: 0979990: SYMPTOM_TEXT: “sudden cardiac arrest”

–              VAERS_ID: 0939270: SYMPTOM_TEXT: “Sudden cardiac death”

An oft-repeated argument against interpreting VAERS data is that the data do not prove causation—the data do not conclusively show that a person died from a COVID vaccine.  That is certainly true, but also misses the point.  The point is that any objective, inquiring person will certainly want to independently evaluate VAERS data in deciding on a COVID vaccination, and any objective, inquiring person would certainly give weight to VAERS reports.

The right to choose means just that: a choice made by an independent-minded person based on all available information.


ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov) is a Web-based resource that provides patients, their family members, health care professionals, researchers, and the public with easy access to information on publicly and privately supported clinical studies on a wide range of diseases and conditions. The Web site is maintained by the US Government National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Information on ClinicalTrials.gov is provided and updated by the sponsor or principal investigator of the clinical study.

Clinical trial studies conducted pursuant to the NIH ACTIV initiative are posted in a searchable database accessible at https://clinicaltrials.gov. There are currently 20 important clinical trials concerning safety and efficacy of the three primary COVID vaccines manufactured by Janssen, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, with the estimated study completion dates one or more years into the future:

Study No.  

Study Title

Estimated Study Completion Date
1 A Study of Ad26.COV2.S for the Prevention of SARS-CoV-2-Mediated COVID-19 in Adult Participants (ENSEMBLE)  

January 2, 2023

2 A Study of Ad26.COV2.S for the Prevention of SARS-CoV-2-mediated COVID-19 in Adults (ENSEMBLE 2) May 31, 2023
3 A Study of Ad26.COV2.S in Adults (COVID-19) February 2, 2024
4 A Study of Ad26.COV2.S in Healthy Pregnant Participants (COVID-19) (HORIZON 1)  

June 20, 2023

5 A Study to Evaluate Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Adults Aged 18 Years and Older to Prevent COVID-19  

October 27, 2022

6 A Study to Evaluate Safety and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 Vaccine to Prevent COVID-19 in Adult Organ Transplant Recipients and in Healthy Adult Participants  

August 26, 2022

7 A Study to Evaluate Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1283 and mRNA-1273 Vaccines in Healthy Adults Between 18 Years and 55 Years of Age to Prevent COVID-19  


April 13, 2022

8 Dose-Confirmation Study to Evaluate the Safety, Reactogenicity, and Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccine in Adults Aged 18 Years and Older  

Nov. 1, 2021


9 Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals  

May 2, 2023

10 A Trial Investigating the Safety and Effects of Four BNT162 Vaccines Against COVID-2019 in Healthy and Immunocompromised Adults  

April 2023

11 Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine Effectiveness Study – Kaiser Permanente Southern California July 30, 2023
12 Study to Evaluate Safety, Tolerability & Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 in Immunocompromised Participants ≥2 Years Jan. 24, 2023
13 Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a Booster Dose of BNT162b2 in Participants ≥16 Years of Age August 7, 2022
14 Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of SARS CoV-2 RNA Vaccine Candidate (BNT162b2) Against COVID-19 in Healthy Pregnant Women 18 Years of Age and Older  


July 25, 2022


15 Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccine in Cancer Patients Dec. 31, 2022


16 A Trial of the Safety and Immunogenicity of the COVID-19 Vaccine (mRNA-1273) in Participants With Hematologic Malignancies and Various Regimens of Immunosuppression, and in Participants With Solid Tumors on PD1/PDL1 Inhibitor Therapy  


February 25, 2023

17 Post COVID-19 Vaccination Analysis in Healthcare Worker Recipients February 2022
18 The Lymphoma and Leukemia Society COVID-19 Registry February 23, 2031
19 Yale COVID-19 Recovery Study May 3, 2022
20 Host Immune Response to Novel RNA COVID-19 Vaccination January, 2024

As of the date of this document, 173 clinical trials relating to COVID-19 vaccines are underway in the United States alone, as reported at the clinicaltrials.gov website.  A true and correct summary of each of these 173 clinical trials, along with the webpage reporting each clinical study, is attached here.

This means that an enormous amount of information regarding long-term effects of the COVID vaccines is not currently known, and will not be known, until completion of a material number of the clinical trials—particularly the targeted trials identified as items no. 1-20, above.


In Doe v. Incyte Corporation, Case 2:21-cv-05956, Central District of California, employees of a big pharma company (Incyte) challenge the employer’s COVID vaccination mandate under the California State Constitution, article 1, section 1.

Incyte imposed an August 1, 2021 deadline for its employees to all receive a COVID vaccine.  The Complaint to stop the mandate (originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court) is here.  A motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining filed to stop the August 1 vaccination mandate deadline is  here.  Incyte then postponed its August 1 vaccine deadline mandate, putting all non-vaccinated employees on paid administrative leave.  This rendered the TRO motion moot, for the time being.

Analysis of California Law

Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution is an enumeration of the inalienable rights of all Californians. Privacy is declared to be among those rights.  Constitutional privacy includes the right to make intimate personal decisions or conduct personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference. The employees’ rights to decide what is done with their own bodies, and to consent or not consent to an experimental medical treatment with unknown risks, is just such an intimate personal decision protected under our Constitution.

The Incyte employees’ case involves the autonomy privacy right referenced by the California Supreme Court in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 842 (Cal. 1994): the right to make intimate personal decisions or conduct personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference.

The privacy standards that guide California Courts in implementing this privacy right arise principally under the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act, HSC Ch. 1.3. Human Experimentation [HSC §§24170 – 24179.5].  HSC §24171 declares the Medical Experimentation Act’s primary legislative intent to be this:

Section 14172 of the Medical Experimentation Act provides an “experimental subject’s bill of rights” which, among other things, includes the experimental subject’s rights to “(j) Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision” (emphasis added).

Does the Medical Experimentation Act offer guidance for development of a privacy standard under Constitution article I, section 1 with respect to a person’s right to voluntarily choose whether to accept an unproven, experimental vaccine, or not?  The answer to that question must certainly be “yes,” for at least the following reasons:

First, The Medical Experimentation Act’s statement of legislative intent and subject’s bill of rights express clear public policies of this State concerning control of one’s own body to accept, or not accept, unproven medical treatments. A commonsense and plain reading of the Medical Experimentation Act shows it is a natural legislative extension of privacy rights guaranteed under Constitution article I, section 1.

Second, that a mandatory COVID vaccination requirement is not actually administered by the employer—but by a third-party medical provider—does not change the fact that the employer is the proximate cause of force and undue influence causing the experimental injection of the employee for purposes of the Medical Experimentation Act.  Thus, the intent of the Act applies to Incyte, even though a third party would administer the COVID vaccine injection.

Third, there is no decision more intimate or personal than to consent, or not consent, to an experimental medical treatment: that person’s life may literally hangs in the balance. No other person should be allowed to assess the risks and benefits of an unproven medial treatment on behalf of that person.  No employer should be able to make a potential life-or-death decision for its employees as a condition of continued employment simply to burnish its own public image in the marketplace, or to satisfy institutional shareholders’ interest in earning larger profits from their vaccine company holdings.

The right to determine what is done to one’s own body, and to voluntarily consent or not consent to an unproven medical treatment may be the foremost intimate personal decision a person ever faces.  A person’s employer has no legal, moral, or ethical right to make that decision for an employee, or to coerce that decision, or exercise undue influence or force with respect to that decision.  And make no mistake: conditioning ongoing employment on consent to a COVID vaccine injection is an exercise of undue influence, force, and coercion. A person who had a job yesterday but does not have that job today—because he or she refused to take a COVID vaccination—faces existential survival threats that follow from lack of income.


covid vaccination mandate


May California employers mandate COVID vaccinations for employees?  The short answer is no.

California’s constitutional right to privacy, combined with California’s unfair competition law, prevent an employer from mandating COVID shots as a condition of continued employment.  Here is the analysis:

Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution says this:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

The inalienable right to personal privacy in California includes “the right of individuals to determine what is done to their own bodies.” This legislative policy is made clear in a California statute entitled “Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act,” which says this:

The Legislature hereby finds and declares that medical experimentation on human subjects is vital for the benefit of mankind, however such experimentation shall be undertaken with due respect to the preciousness of human life and the right of individuals to determine what is done to their own bodies. [1]

This language underscores the inherent tension between medical experimentation, on the one hand, and the right of all people to determine what is done to their own bodies, on the other.   Because it is a declared public policy of California, the right to determine what is done to ones own body is a recognized privacy right under the California Constitution, Section I, Article 1.

And under the unfair competition laws of California, an employer may not violate the privacy rights of its employees as a condition of continued employment.[2]  This means if an employer tells California employees they must take an experimental COVID shot—effectively telling employees that they no longer have the right to determine what is done to their own bodies—as a condition of continued employment, an employment violation is triggered, for which injunctive relief and damages are available under Business & Professions Code §17200.  Employers who attempt to mandate COVID vaccinations will violate this law.


An employer’s mandatory vaccination requirement would also ignore the requirements of  the Federal Food and Drug Act, 21 USC §360bbb-3(e), for informed consent—

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of each of the experimental COVID vaccinations and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

Employees have standing to sue under this federal statute since they are “individuals” to whom the mandatory COVID vaccinations would be administered.  It is established law that potential harm from forced exposure to dangerous food products or drugs is a risk that confers Article III standing to private litigants.[3]


Little is actually known about the short and long term risks and benefits of each of the COVID vaccinations.  Alarmingly, some recent studies suggest that the risks of COVID vaccinations may far outweigh the benefits.  For example, data suggest that at least 3,000 deaths in US may have been caused by a COVID shot. The HHS VAERS Dataset suggests that number may be much, much higher.  Other evidence suggests a direct link between COVID shots and blood clots, myocarditis and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.  At minimum, until these risks and benefits are better understood and resolved, no employer may mandate COVID vaccinations.


Is there a middle ground between an employee’s right to privacy and an employer’s need to provide overall safety in the workplace?  Yes–there is always a middle ground to be found in cases involving individual rights vs. collective rights.  Finding the middle ground is what constitutional questions always involve, at both the state and federal levels.

And if reasonable accommodations can be made for non-vaccinated people in all other sectors of society—professional sports, restaurants, bars, subways, churches, and retail stores—can a company not do the same for its employees?  California law requires no less.


[1] Calif. Health & Safety Code, CHAPTER 1.3. Human Experimentation [24170 – 24179.5].

[2] Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp., 264 Cal.Rptr. 194, 206 (Cal. App. 1989). “Unfair competition under Business & Professions Code §17200 encompasses anything that can properly be called a business practice which at the same time is forbidden by law.”

[3] See, e.g., Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625, 632 (2d Cir.2003)

employers may not mandate COVID vaccinations




Healthcare sharing is the best option for the 28 million uninsured people in this country–a fact supported by a 2019, Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) study.  The CBO study assessed how many people in the United States under age 65 have health insurance and how is that insurance paid for.  The CBO study can be found here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-04/55094-CoverageUnder65_0.pdf.  The summary page from that study is here.

CBO’s findings aggregate this way for insured / uninsured persons under age 65:

243 million people: insurance paid by group employer policy or government subsidies.
(The 243 million figure is derived by adding: employment based coverage (157 million) + subsidized non-group coverage (8.4 million) + Medicaid/CHIPS (69.4 million) + Medicare (8.3 million)  = 243 million.)

28 million people: uninsured.

So, who are these 28 million uninsured people?

The uninsured population in the US are largely the self-employed and small business owners—people who make too much money to qualify for a government subsidy, but not enough money to pay for health insurance.

These are the people who are best served by the healthcare sharing alternative to insurance: the self-employed and small business owners who are locked out of subsidized programs, but often can’t afford traditional insurance.

We also see from the Alliance of Healthcare Sharing Ministries data (http://ahcsm.org/about-us/data-and-statistics/) that 1.5 million people in the United States, and 144,000 people in the State of Texas participate in healthcare sharing.

These two data sources taken together reveal informative conclusions:

First, healthcare sharing is not drawing away healthy people from the ACA insurance pools, contrary to some claims.  1.5 million people participate healthcare sharing nationwide, compared to 243 million people whose insurance is paid by an employer or subsidized by the government is 1.5 million ÷ 243 million = .006.  That’s a rounding error.  We assess that healthcare sharing is not drawing healthy people away from ACA insurance pools because people whose insurance is paid by an employer, or the government, are unlikely to drop that paid-for insurance just to join a healthcare sharing program that they must pay for themselves.  Human nature is such.

Second, because healthcare sharing is universally more affordable than insurance under the “Affordable Care Act,” it offers an attractive, affordable option to the uninsured population of Texas, which we estimate at 2.5 million people.  These people are the small business owners and self-employed of this country.  So, it is in the interest of Texas, and the various states, to expand healthcare sharing options, not restrict those options.

Its time for broad acceptance of the value and benefits that healthcare sharing offers the 28 million uninsured of this country.

healthcare sharing