In August 2021, the District of Columbia had deliberated in favour of a Covid-19 vaccine mandate for all medical practitioners and health workers. Defended by Christopher Ferrara, lawyer and member of the Thomas More Society, a no-profit law firm in defense of life, family and religious liberty, Sister Deidre had requested to be exempted for religious reasons, due to the fact that the three available vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna and J&J) took recourse to the use of fetal cell lines derived from aborted babies in their research, experimentation and/or production.
At the beginning of March this year,her request was refused, and Sister Deidre was forced to suspend her medical practice. However, her lawyers responded, suing the District of Columbia (DC), the Mayor, Muriel Bowser, and the Director of the Department of Health, Quandra Nesbitt, for their refusal to concede exemptions for religious motives. In this case, the religious objections are well-founded due to the fact that abortion, as the lawyers explain “is connected to, and supports the experimentation which involves aborted fetal tissues and cell lines derived from them, most recently in reference to the experimental genetic mRNA and DNA injections utilised against Covid-19”.
On 15 March, Sister Deidre finally received a letter from the Department of Health of the District of Columbia, in which it is stated that because of the reduction in Covid-19 cases, her exemption would be respected until 15 March 2023. The letter specifies that “if the Director were to decide that such a decision may not be in the public interest, the conceded exemption may be revoked”. Sister Dede, as she is amicably called, may nevertheless recommence her care of those most in need, but from the contents of the letter, it is clear that the battle is not yet won. Who will decide what is in the “best interest” of public health? Especially considering that “best interest” is an expression which in reality has become a euphemism referring to the suppression of some inalienable human right, such as was the case with little Alfie. The situation remains unclear, at least from a legal perspective. From a moral and religious perspective, Sister Deidre has become a solid point of reference for all individuals who have understood what is at stake with regard to these serums….
The above comes from an April 15 posting on the New Compass Daily website.
“The letter specifies that “if the Director were to decide that such a decision may not be in the public interest, the conceded exemption may be revoked”.
That is not correct. No such language appears in the March 15 letter, which provides that a new suit may be instituted if the exemption is not renewed or revoked for any reason.
Christopher A. Ferrara
co-counsel for Sister Deirdre
It is a shame that Catholics have narrowed their focus to the long-ago-abortion issue–the remote coöperation issue.
The bio-weapon has CAUSED thousands of abortions–but the position of 100% of the bishops is that that issue is not “Catholic” enough to form a basis for consciences to reject the bio-weapon.
And 100% of the bishops have refused to mention the two million murders from the bio-weapon shots and the bio-weapon known as Remdesivir.
I’ll have to ask Karl Keating what he thinks about all of this.
The prevailing belief by so many Catholics and others that the vaccines were developed by using fetal cells from abortions has a ring of untruth to it: the fetal cells used are NOT from recently aborted tissue, but in fact from the ’60s and ’70s, (https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf). But let’s say that one truly doesn’t want to use anything that utilized fetal tissue in its design, development or final product – what pray tell might also be on the list of “sinful” items? That Nestle’ Coffee Creamer you use in your coffee after mass for one (https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/fetalproductsall.pdf). Other examples are around, and yes, one can find alternatives in many cases. COVID, however, is a unique virus, and when one refuses on religious grounds to take the vaccine in order for stop its spread among populations, one has taken their life and the lives of others in their hands. Don’t want to be vaccinated? The way to solve this is to then quarantine yourself so that 1) you don’t get exposed, 2) you don’t spread the virus and 3) you’re relatively safe.
1) What is the source of the cells used to test (not develop) the new batches of vaccine doses that are distributed?
2) Do you also advocate sequestration of the food supply to protect the allergic?
3) Do you endorse abstinence programs to prevent the spread of venereal diseases?
Dremel, you are “drumming” to the wrong tune.