Clarence Thomas suggests Covid vaccines are derived from the cells of 'aborted children'

[Javaman]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/30/clarence-thomas-claims-covid-vaccines-are-derived-from-the-cells-of-aborted-children-00043483

Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in testing during the Covid vaccine development process, a practice that is common in vaccine testing.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissenting opinion Thursday suggested that Covid-19 vaccines were developed using the cells of “aborted children.”

The conservative justice’s statement came in a dissenting opinion on a case in which the Supreme Court declined to hear a religious liberty challenge to New York’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate from 16 health care workers. The state requires that all health care workers show proof of vaccination.

“They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” Thomas said of the petitioners.

None of the Covid-19 vaccines in the United States contain the cells of aborted fetuses. Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in testing during the Covid vaccine development process, a practice that is common in vaccine testing — including for the rubella and chickenpox vaccinations.


more at link..

---------

fucking moron.

[JohnSJ]

1. I would strongly encourage him not to take any vaccines, and go into large crowds without a mask

[atreides1]

5. I would do the opposite

Encourage him not to take the vaccines and then to go into a large crowd of others who decided not the take the vaccine!!!

[ultralite001]

2. The Supreme Court...

should stop practicing medicine without a license...


That is all...

[empedocles]

4. Bizarre!

Most bizarre Scotus member - ever?

[ultralite001]

7. Definitely...

a bit "tetched in the head"...

That is all...

[emulatorloo]

3. Yeah, a very predictable moron.

[LuckyCharms]

6. STFU, Clarence.

[FeelingBlue]

8. He should be impeached.

He’s out of his mind.

[GoCubsGo]

9. Clarence Thomas is a fucking idiot.

He is also mentally ill, being obsessed with aborted fetuses. He's a goddamn sick-o.

[Lovie777]

10. And he's a justice in the USA . . . .

making decisions that hurt America, especially women.

PSYCHO along with the of the GQP.

[woodsprite]

11. Actually, some of the cells used in creating/testing the COVID vaccine were HeLa cells...

WHO honors Henrietta Lacks, a Black American whose cells were taken without consent and used in vaccine research
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2021/10/13/henrietta-lacks-who-honored-vaccine-research/

[Ms. Toad]

12. Read what he actually said. It is factually accurate.

"because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children."

Derived from (or containing) is not the same as developed using.

Development of a vaccine includes testing it to make sure it is safe and effective. At least some, and perhaps all, of the COVID vaccines (like most other vaccines) were "developed using cell lines derived from aborted children." In the same way they were developed using laboratory equipment, human volunteers to test it, etc.

Facts matter.

We may disagree about whether the involvement of cell lines derived from aborted fetuses matters - but the allegation that he believes the vaccines themselves were derived from (or contain) the cells of aborted fetus is not consistent with what he said.

[keep_left]

13. Remember the vaccine mandate exemption from Conway Health System?

It listed all the drugs and vaccines that had been made with HEK and similar cell lines. If Justice Thomas objects to the Covid vaccines (not all were developed with "aborted" cells, but the most effective ones were), he's going to have to object to a lot of other medical advances as well.

Even the Catholic Church officially endorses the Covid vaccines, under the principle of "double effect".

https://katv.com/news/local/conway-regional-ceo-says-covid-19-religious-exemption-isnt-an-attempt-to-shame-employees

[Ms. Toad]

16. He wasn't objecting to the COVID vaccines.

Remember - he is a justice and his job (had the Supreme Court taken the case) is to weigh the objections others have to the vaccines against the law which made them mandatory.

It chose not to take the case. His dissent was to his fellow justices' decision not to hear the case. In other words what he objects to is not the vaccines - but the court's refusal to hear the case. The objection to vaccines is not (necessarily) what he personally believes, and not even how he would have decided the dase. He was merely saying he would have granted the writ (i.e. he believes the Supreme Court should have heard the case).

[keep_left]

18. But the case concerns the objection to the vaccines, which use an utterly ubiquitous technology...

...used in almost every medical discovery since the '60s. HEK and similar cell lines are used in labs absolutely everywhere for more things than you can imagine.

I'm not a lawyer, I just work with them, or rather they do work for me (patent attorneys), but this just looks like an absurd case. I would really like a qualified attorney to explain it to DUers.

[Ms. Toad]

21. I am an attorney - which is why I explained what he actually said -

(in response to the OP) and that his statement, in dissent to the denial of cert, has nothing to do with whether he, personally, objects to vaccines (which is what you suggested).

As to the law involved, it is completely irrelevant whether the person complaining about an infringement of their religious beliefs follows those beliefs consistently. (In other words the person bringing the case could have been violating every single religious belief they purport to hold dear and still have a legal right not to be required to violate those beliefs by the state.)

But - under settled law, whatever that means these days, it is an absurd case.

The applicable line of cases starts with Employment Division v. Smith. Smith was a Native American who used peyote as part of his spiritual practices. He was fired for violating state law against the use of peyote and state unemployment services denied his claim for benefits. The court ruled, essentially, that while the state could have chosen to accommodate his religious beliefs it was not required to do so. States are permitted to enforce generally applicable laws EVEN when the particular law incidentally interferes with Smith's right to practice his religion. From the case:

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....

Obviously, the object of the state requirement was not to target people who have religious objections to abortion - it was a generally applicable and otherwise valid requirement (mandatory vaccination laws including state requirements for childhood vaccinations as a condition to entering school, have been in existence for as long as I can remember and have survived legal challenges on bases other than violation of religious freedom).

BUT - this is relatively recent in terms of settled law (1990), and I am sure that the fact that the religious beliefs were Native American - not Christian - influenced the decision. (After all, how many parents or churches have been prosecuted, or fired, for giving minors alcohol as part of communion?). With the Christo-centric court we have now - and a violation of certain Christian beliefs alleged - the court could decide that Smith was wrongly decided (just like Roe). Right now it does not seem inclined to do so (6 justices voted to deny cert).

So the case isn't as absurd as you imagine, given recent cases.

And, just so you know, patent attorneys aren't like other attorneys. As a general rule, patent attorneys don't usually like to get their fingers dirty with other law. I'm one of the few whose practice was significantly broader than just patents/IP - and I've also been teaching about 18 subjects (including con law) at a high level for the last several years.

[keep_left]

22. Thank you for explaining this. It just seems absurd...

...considering the fact that those objecting have at least one alternative which does not use immortal "aborted" cell lines. You can also bet serious money that the Conway Health System ran that vax mandate and the document posted in that article past their legal department.

To laymen, this does look like an absurd case, and one that is made in bad faith. Especially because Thomas actually believes this garbage.

[Ms. Toad]

24. It actually has even more basis than the potential for overturning settled law.

See my explanation here.

I had not read the dissent when I explained the quote attributed to Thomas - and I know the general law from Smith. I have now read the dissent. I haven't read the underlying case Thomas cited - but it is an exception to Smith which (at least on its face) passes the laugh test.

So you don't have to go chase my other post: Essentially the argument is that state potentially lost the "generally applicable" safe harbor when it allowed people with secular objections (medical exemptions) to continue working as long as they took certain precautions to protect others. That different treatment for secular reasons may have rendered the generally applicable law no longer generally applicable. If so, it's harder to force people to violate their religious beliefs which run contrary to state law (or the equivalent).

I understand the reasoning for NY limiting the exemption to medical exemptions - if it was opened up to all objections, for any reason, it would gut the law. It is a compelling interest (keeping the number of unvaccinated healthcare workers to an absolute minimum), to which the requirement is directly related (only a very few will have true medical contraindications - so a universal rule with a single category of exemptions serves that goal). The question is whether there is another way to serve that interest without treating religious exemptions different from all others.

The truism in law is that the plaintiff wins if the test is strict scrutiny; the state wins if it is rational basis. It isn't always true - but it is most of the time.

So - who knows. But - at least for now - 6 justices aren't interested in resolving that particular question.

[Progressive dog]

14. As expected from the holy (in his mind) Thomas.

We aren't a theocracy yet but we have a "supreme court" that thinks we are.

[FakeNoose]

15. Then he must be very happy that those "aborted children" saved Chump's life

You know, every day Clarence Thomas is sounding more like a raving lunatic who's running for some county office in East Bumfuck. Are you sure he has a law degree? He doesn't sound like he does.

[blueinredohio]

17. It has to be true

because Ginny told him.

[Javaman]

20. That was my very first though

Moron conspiracy under every rock seditious Ginny

[dalton99a]

19. Lazy ignorant asshole repeats what he heard on Fox News

[BlueIdaho]

23. Get the net

This guy shouldn’t be making decisions about what to have with his cornflakes in the morning let alone the rights of citizens after he’s dead and buried.