by Ramon Tomey

A California appeals court ruled that a state law punishing care home workers for “misgendering” their elderly wards was unconstitutional. The California Third District Court of Appeal’s July 16 decision sided with First Amendment speech protections – with all three judges in the panel ruling unanimously. Because of the July 16 ruling, care home staff no longer needed to worry about being penalized for using pronouns that were inconsistent with elderly residents’ claimed gender identity.

The court’s decision pertained to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights, which was signed into law by former California Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017. It banned long-term care facilities from discriminating based on people’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or HIV status. The California Legislature added it to the state’s Health and Safety Code in the same year.

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener said in 2017 that he wrote the bill due to reports of elderly LGBT people being mistreated. He added that LGBT seniors face special challenges that were not covered by existing nursing home laws.

“We have a number of advocacy organizations that are very excited about the bill that helped us get it passed. [They] are definitely putting the word out that people living in long-term care facilities have these protections and should be aware of them,” Wiener said.

However, an informal group of state taxpayers calling themselves Taking Offense challenged the law. They challenged a provision in the California Health and Safety Code that banned staff members from “willfully and repeatedly referring to a facility resident by other than [their] preferred name or pronoun when clearly informed.”

According to Taking Offense, the said provision violated care home staffers’ right to free speech, free exercise and religion and freedoms of thought and belief. The group added that the said provision is vague and overbroad. (Related: Federal appeals court rules in favor of professor who refused to use preferred pronouns of transgender student.)

Penalizing people who misgender is a “restriction of speech”

In its 46-page decision, the court said “it recognized the [California] Legislature’s legitimate and laudable goal of rooting out discrimination against LGBT residents of long-term care facilities. However, it agreed with the argument of Taking Offense that “the pronoun provision is a content-based restriction of speech that does not survive strict scrutiny.”

The decision elaborated: “The pronoun provision – whether enforced through criminal or civil penalties – is over-inclusive in that it restricts more speech than is necessary to achieve the government’s compelling interest in eliminating discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of sex.” Furthermore, it added that the law “criminalizes even occasional, isolated, off-hand instances of willful misgendering … without requiring that such occasional instances … amount to harassing or discriminatory conduct.”

The Epoch Times reached out to California Attorney General Rob Bonta for comment about the ruling. However, it did not receive a reply by press time.

Many have disputed the concept of gender identity as it went against the long-established truth of male and female being the only two genders. However, social media platforms have contributed to the promotion of the concept. Facebook permitted users to select from a list of 58 genders to display on their profiles. Meanwhile, Twitter banned users for “dead-naming” transgender people or calling them by their names prior to their gender transition. (Related: Social Justice Warriors want students to wear name tags that describe their “preferred gender pronoun.”)

Other areas have also implemented laws similar to that of California. New York City passed such a law in 2016 that banned gender discrimination. According to a New York Post report from May 2016, violators could face fines of up to $250,000 for simply failing to use a person’s preferred pronouns.

The guidelines issued by the New York City Commission on Human Rights (CHR) said employers and landlords must use individuals’ preferred pronouns. It explained that some transgender individuals prefer to use other pronouns other than the traditional ones used to refer to males and females. Examples of these other pronouns included the third person singular “ze” and the third person plural “hir.”

Former CHR Spokesman Seth Hoy said that time: “The commission issued this guidance … so that employers and individuals understand what the law says and to ensure that every transgender individual in New York City is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.” However, later guidance clarified that people accidentally misgendering a transgender person’s preferred pronoun would not be penalized.

by Li Hai

America’s Frontline Doctors—a nonprofit organization—filed a motion on July 19 seeking immediate injunctive relief to stop the emergency use authorization (EUA) of COVID-19 vaccines for three groups of Americans: anyone under 18 years old, anyone recovered from COVID-19, and those who haven’t received informed consent as defined by federal law.

The motion was filed against Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and other defendants in a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama.

“The emergency declaration and its multiple renewals are illegal,” the complaint (pdf) alleges.

According to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use is appropriate, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) may then authorize unapproved use or EUA of the vaccines.

On Feb. 4, 2020, then-Secretary of HHS Alex Azar declared a public health emergency, saying that existing circumstances justify the emergency use authorization.

The complaint alleges that the legal requirements to issue and maintain COVID-19 vaccine EUAs are not met.

Firstly, there is no underlying emergency and no “serious or life-threatening disease or condition,” the complaint notes.

According to defendants’ death data, the CCP virus has an overall survivability rate of 99.8 percent globally, “on a par with the seasonal flu.”

However, the defendants’ data is deliberately inflated, the complaint alleges, saying that HHS has changed the rules applicable to persons responsible for writing death certificates and requires them to make cause of death determinations primarily attributable to COVID-19. From last March, death certificates indicated “COVID-19 [as] being the underlying cause more often than not.”

The way in which COVID-19 is diagnosed—using magnified values from PCR tests, which were also authorized for emergency use—guarantees “an unacceptably high number of false-positive results,” the complaint continued.

Secondly, COVID-19 vaccines are not effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing a disease or condition, which fails another requirement for issuing and maintaining EUAs.

The complaint cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): a total of 10,262 CCP virus breakthrough infections (detection of SARS-COV-2, 14 or more days after receiving required dosages) of those fully vaccinated were reported between Jan. 1 and April 30.

“It is important to note that the vaccines were only shown to reduce symptoms—not block transmission,” the complaint added.

Thirdly, the benefits do not outweigh the known and potential risks of each vaccine. Those risks are especially increased in reproductive health, potential death, neurological damage, more virulent strains, and others.

Lastly, there are adequate, approved, and available alternatives to the vaccines, such as Ivermectin, Budesonide, Hydroxychloroquine, and others.

Not Adequately Informed

The plaintiffs also allege that healthcare professionals and vaccine candidates are not being adequately informed, as the federal law requires.

“No one ever provided me with any information regarding possible adverse reactions, nor did they provide me with any information regarding alternative treatments. I did not understand this was gene therapy rather than a traditional vaccine. Again, I also did not understand that the vaccines were not ‘approved’ by the FDA,” plaintiff Angelia Deselle said in a declaration included in the lawsuit.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was established to provide information regarding adverse events potentially caused by vaccines. The complaint pointed out that VAERS is not accurate and the federal government is failing to provide data from other sources such as the military, Medicare, and Medicaid.

According to the complaint, a patient cannot give informed consent without an understanding of the risks.

Under 18 Age Group and Those Recovered From COVID-19

“CDC data indicates that children under 18 have a 99.998 percent COVID-19 recovery rate with no treatment,” the complaint says. “Injecting this under-18 subpopulation with the Vaccines threatens them with immediate, potentially life-threatening harm.”

Last month, the CDC said more than 1,200 cases of heart inflammation in adolescents and young adults were reported following the administration of Pfizer’s or Moderna’s two-shot vaccines.

“There is no public interest in subjecting children to experimental vaccination programs, to protect them from a disease that does not threaten them,” said Dr. Angelina Farella, a pediatrician who has actively practiced for over 25 years, in a declaration. Farella is an expert for America’s Frontline Doctors.

The complaint asserts that Americans who have recovered from COVID-19 should not get vaccinated.

It cited a recent Cleveland Clinic study that demonstrates natural immunity through prior infection is stronger than any benefit conferred by a COVID vaccine. Another study published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that for those with preexisting COVID-19 immunity, 89 percent of them reported adverse side-effects after receiving the first vaccine injection.

“COVID recovered patients are at extremely high risk to a vaccine,” plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Richard Urso said in a declaration. “They have all the requisite components of immune memory. Vaccination may activate a hyperimmune response leading to a significant tissue injury and possibly death.”

Whistleblower Testimony: 45,000 Deaths Following Vaccinations

Jane Doe, a computer programmer with expertise in the healthcare data analytics field, filed a sworn statement indicating the actual number of deaths following the COVID-19 vaccination is about 45,000.

“It is my professional estimate that VAERS database, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least 5. On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS,” Jane Doe said in her declaration (pdf).

“I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000.”

Jane Doe noted that the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market because of 53 deaths reported following the vaccination.

“The evidence makes it irrefutable that Plaintiffs and others in the public will suffer irreparable injury … if this motion is denied,” the plaintiffs asserted. “Finally, the evidence tilts the balance of hardships and public interest … decisively in favor of Plaintiffs.”

In an email to The Epoch Times, the HHS declined to comment on the lawsuit, “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on pending litigation.”

President Joe Biden praised the vaccines as safe and effective.

“You know, some people have questions about how quickly the vaccines were developed. They say they’ve been developed so quickly, they can’t be that good. Well, here’s what you need to know: Vaccines were developed over a decade of research in similar viruses, and they’ve gone through strict FDA clinical trials,” Biden said last month.

“The bottom line is this—I promise you: They are safe. They are safe. And even more importantly, they’re extremely effective.”

The Biden administration announced earlier this month that it would start door-to-door outreach in targeted communities to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates.