San Diego Unified School District Delays Vaccine Mandate With No Religious Exemptions.

As opponents go ahead with a federal lawsuit against the district, the San Diego Unified School District decided on May 24 to postpone its policy forcing kids to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for a second time.

The decision to postpone the mandate was welcomed as a success by Paul Jonna, Thomas More Society Special Counsel and partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP.

“We applaud this course of action,” Jonna said in a statement, “which marks yet another big success for these families and their children, the majority of whom will now be able to experience regular senior years and graduate from high school.”

The requirement, which was supposed to go into force in July, will be postponed until 2023 or later. The school system, which has previously postponed the obligation, is one of the few in the country that compels pupils to get the vaccination for in-person teaching while not allowing religious exemptions.

As previously reported by The Epoch Times, the highly disputed case was heard by the Supreme Court three months ago. After the school district postponed the mandate, the high court refused an attempt to prevent it on February 18, but allowed the petitioners to seek an injunction in the future “if circumstances justify.” “Emergency relief is not justified at this time since respondents have delayed implementation of the challenged policy and have not agreed on the shape any policy would now take,” the court judgment adds.

The Supreme Court has been hesitant to overturn regulations forcing persons to undergo COVID-19 vaccines, but has been prepared to limit pandemic-related restrictions where religious freedoms are challenged.

The new postponement decision came just days after attorneys from the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm specializing in religious liberty, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal court against the mandate, and one day before the school district’s response to the motion was due. The motion will be heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 15.

The Thomas More Society and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty are representing a group of families who sued the school system and its board of education over a policy that forced pupils to get the controversial vaccinations while specifically disallowing religious exemptions. Those who protest claim that the vaccinations are ineffective since they are made from human fetal cell lines.

The policy of the school system would have compelled students to either take the vaccination and violate their religion, or to refuse the vaccine and withdraw from all extracurricular activities, returning to independent, online study.

11 justices from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dissented from a decision not to offer emergency relief for students with religious objections to the mandate, claiming that the requirement should be knocked down immediately due to its constitutional flaws, according to Jonna. When the Supreme Court was about to strike down the San Diego school requirement, he claimed, the district paused the policy, causing the high court to decline to interfere.

“It’s probable that the school board’s choice to postpone the mandate earlier this year was designed to avoid Supreme Court scrutiny,” Jonna added. The district quickly voted to reimpose the mandate as of July 20, 2022.

“As a result, we promptly filed another application for injunctive relief, with a hearing set for June 15, 2022,” Jonna explained. “However, the district is withdrawing its mandate once more–likely because it recognizes that the requirement will be overturned in court.”

According to the district’s own findings, there is no significant viral transmission in the classroom, and other mitigation measures appear to be effective in preventing spread. Furthermore, while 80% of kids are vaccinated, he claims there is no reason to refuse to accommodate children with religious concerns.

“As a result, the San Diego Unified School District has no legal or factual basis for implementing a rule that excludes kids who have genuine religious objections.”

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Jonna noted that, despite the fact that the odds are stacked against the school system, it is critical to press on with the case because of the district’s practices.

“At this point, this requirement is practically gone,” Jonna remarked.

“They will never be able to defend this requirement.” And we want to depose all of the major players… it appears like all of their medical specialists have backed down.”

“At this point, they should merely agree to provide religious objection safeguards for kids and agree that any future mandate would include that protection.” But, in the absence of a clear agreement to that effect, we’ll just get on with the lawsuit,” he added.

“A huge success for now,” Jonna added, “since many of our clients will now be able to graduate from high school without this rule hurting them.” As a result, it’s a major thing.”

The pressure against unvaccinated children in these blue communities is egregious and should come to a stop immediately. We’re talking about secular democrats discriminating against Christian families for choosing to not participate in this globalist experimental “vaccination” program. We can go on and on all day about how these vaccines are harmful and biologically manipulative. But at the end of the day it’s the people behind the policy that are concerning. Are these public figures exploiting the fear instilled into society by urging citizens to get their children vaccinated? Even budging the children to become vaccinated without parental consent?

Those in favor of these tyrannical measures in places like America are only troubled by our position because they never knew the freedom they’ve given up. They haven’t observed the privileges given to them bought and paid for with blood sweat and tears. They seem to think humanity can operate without the people they loathe. Such shortsightedness is sure to progress into something much more problematic in the coming years. These are actions planned and executed, with the intention of dividing the public. These people enacting laws with the sole purpose of moving toward inoculating children with an experimental MRNA vaccination is egregious, and won’t be tolerated by freedom loving citizens. Children belong to their parents, not the community. Because the “community” has proven to be unfit to aid the upbringing of a child. Children brought up in the early 90’s and prior experienced life as it were. Organic and not digitized. Think of how far we’ve come, and how sinister this agenda feels when you see the legislation coming down the pipe.

These vaccines will be pushed onto America heavily by the UN and other globalist organizations once the two tier system is set in place. Nothing that these tyrants can say or do will convince self aware Christians to relinquish their faith in Christ. 1 Peter 4:12-14 says: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.” Please stay inquisitive the word of God, and the world around you.

The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) is urging medical practitioners in Australia to reevaluate how opioid therapy is presently administered.

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2016-2017 figures, more than three million individuals receive at least one opioid prescription each year. While opioids are helpful in relieving pain, long-term usage can result in significant adverse effects such as addiction and unintentional overdose.

The ACSQHC has released the Opioid Analgesic Stewardship in Acute Pain Clinical Care Standard, which outlines how emergency and surgery aftercare personnel should utilize opioids. The new guideline encourages clinicians to utilize non-opioid pain relievers wherever feasible and to set up an aftercare program to help patients wean themselves off opioids.

Anne Duggan, Honorary Professor at the University of Newcastle and ACSQHC Chief Medical Officer, stated in a commission press release that existing opioid therapies lack patient aftercare.

She stated, “Opioid analgesics are extraordinarily efficient in delivering pain relief for severe acute pain.” “However, we must keep in mind that these medications might have serious side effects and put individuals in danger once they leave the hospital.”

“In order to limit the harms associated with incorrect medication and avoid short-term use becoming a long-term problem, we need to fine-tune our prescribing and use of opioid analgesics for acute pain.”

According to Duggan, striking a balance between avoiding overuse of opioids and providing adequate pain treatment to prevent people from suffering unnecessarily is difficult.

“When patients are discharged from the hospital, it is vital that there is a talk with them and a clear medication management plan to wean them off opioids,” she added.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists describes opioids as medications that bind to a responsive protein on nerve cells, preventing pain sensations from reaching the brain via the spinal cord. Opioids include fentanyl, codeine, tramadol, morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, and tapentadol, which are available under a variety of names.

Dr Jennifer Stevens, Anaesthetist and Pain Management Specialist at St Vincent’s Hospitals Sydney, and Honorary Assistant Professor at the University of New South Wales, remarked that Australia’s opioid prescriptions are diverse. By establishing rules for prescribing parties, Stevens claims that the new standard would ensure that every patient receives safe, evidence-based, and effective opioid prescriptions.

“Doctors have a ‘opioid-first’ tendency that they need to break,” Stevens added.

“For mild to moderate pain, the clinical care standard supports the use of basic analgesics like paracetamol and anti-inflammatory drugs, as well as non-medication approaches,” Stevens stated.

“The guideline suggests prudent opioid usage for severe acute pain,” the doctor said.

The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia (SHPA) conducted a countrywide anonymous online survey of hospital pharmacists in May 2018 that revealed this ‘opioid-first’ trend. The study included 135 public and private hospitals and was designed for Directors of Pharmacy or their delegates who are normally in charge of pharmacy policy, procedure, and hospital practice.

According to the poll, 70% of pharmacists would send surgical patients home with opioids even if they had not needed them during the 48-hour period leading up to their release “just in case.”

Furthermore, survey responses revealed that the amount of opioids administered is determined not only by the patient, but also by the physician and, on occasion, the pharmacist’s confidence.

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2017-2018 data, approximately 2.5 million procedures are performed in Australia each year.

Many other European and Asian countries, according to Stevens, rely on opioids for their first-line pain treatment prescription far less than Australia, but show no indication of worse pain outcomes.

Dr. Andrew Sefton, an orthopaedic surgeon at Dubbo Base Hospital NSW and North Shore Private Hospital Sydney, says prescribing clinicians should think about how and when opioid therapy will stop.

“It may be quick and simple to offer a repeat on an opioid prescription when a patient is in pain,” Sefton said, “but we must consider the particular patient to ensure the benefit exceeds the hazards.”

“The clinical care standard emphasizes the need of communication and planning for opioid cessation to facilitate the transition of care into the community.”

“A realistic method to work collaboratively is to provide the patient’s GP with a plan indicating the projected length of opioid usage and the amount of opioids administered,” he added.

The ACSQHC, according to Duggan, expects that the new guideline would make Australia more mindful of how opioids are used in hospitals, ensuring the safety of recuperating patients when they return to community activities.

“It’s strange that a prescription meant to relieve pain for patients may cause long-term agony for someone who becomes a chronic user of opioid analgesics after they leave the hospital,” she concluded.

The ACSQHC should be emphasized that it is not alone in the fight against Australia’s opioid addiction. Since 2018, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has been implementing regulatory changes to reduce improper prescription of the medicine.

So far, the reform has included reducing the pack sizes of immediate-release opioids and modifying the drugs’ listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, a list of government-subsidized pharmaceuticals, in June 2020.

According to data, the administration’s reform was effective in reducing opioid use, implying that the new standard, which follows a similar method, could help Australia cut opioid usage even more.

When talking about big pharma, it’s important to understand that there are lots of doctors out there that are trying their best to perform at their job and aren’t wholly to blame for epidemics such as these. When concluding that it’s a bad idea to discontinue the administering of opioids, you have to wonder why the country that is mass producing these addictive substances is failing to provide patient aftercare in hopes of preventing drug epidemics. It’s about time that people act responsibly and warn people of the dangers associated with pain relief of this magnitude. The same applies to the individual being prescribed the medication. If you feel like you need these addictive substances to relieve your pain after a surgery or what have you, it is up to you to be a responsible individual and to choose self preservation over self destruction. We all know right from wrong.

No one man can make sense of this elaborate illusion cast over the common man of society, but collectively we can point out each limitation forced upon us and bring it forward as an injustice to the public. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” We’re meant to go down preaching the gospel and guiding others to salvation. This could be considered the bravest task a man or woman of faith could undertake, but make no mistake it will bear fruit in the kingdom of heaven. Stay inquisitive in the word of God, and the world around you.