![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.globalresearch.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/shutterstock_1427400671-810x540-400x267.jpg\")
<\/div>\n***<\/p>\n
The Department of Defense will require all U.S. military troops to take the COVID-19 vaccine by September 15th. The Associated Press earlier\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0on\u00a0Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin<\/strong>\u2019s memo.<\/em><\/p>\n The AP reported that \u201cthe deadline could be pushed up if the vaccine receives final FDA approval or infection rates continue to rise.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI will not hesitate to act sooner or recommend a different course to the President if l feel the need to do so. To defend this Nation, we need a healthy and ready force,\u201d the Defense Secretary added.<\/p>\n An Armed Forces member refusing to take the vaccine is subject to punishment under the U.C.M.J., the AP\u2019s report noted. The punishment for refusal to obey an order may escalate up to court martial.<\/p>\n \u201cSome unvaccinated service members have suggested they\u2019d get the shot once it\u2019s required, but others are flatly opposed,\u201d the report said.<\/p>\n Now, some of those \u2018flatly opposed\u2019 soldiers are filing a lawsuit in court against the coming military vaccination mandate. Those listed on the lawsuit as defendants are\u00a0Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin,<\/strong>\u00a0Secretary of Health & Human Services Xavier Becerra, and Janet Woodock,<\/strong>\u00a0Acting Commissioner of the Food & Drug Administration.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiffs Staff Sergeant Daniel Robert, U.S. Army, and Staff Sergeant Holli Mulvihill, USMC, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated active duty, National Guard, and Reserve servicemembers, as documented survivors of COVID-19, file this action against the Department of Defense (\u201cDoD\u201d), seeking a declaratory judgment that the DoD cannot force them to take a COVID-19 vaccination under existing military regulations, federal regulations, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution,\u201d the plaintiffs\u2019\u00a0legal complaint<\/a> states.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin (the \u201cSECDEF\u201d) has publicly notified Plaintiffs, via Memo, that he will seek authorization from the President of the United States of America (the \u201cPresident\u201d), to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine on or about September 15, 2021,\u201d the plaintiffs note. \u201cUpon information and belief, the DoD is already vaccinating military members in flagrant violation of its legal obligations and the rights of servicemembers under federal law and the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cArmy Regulation 40-562 provides documented survivors of an infection, a presumptive medical exemption from vaccination because of the natural immunity acquired as a result of having survived the infection,\u201d the legal complaint added.<\/p>\n \u201cGeneral examples of medical exemptions include the following\u2026 Evidence of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection, or similar circumstances,\u201d the lawsuit cites.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment on the separate basis that the Emergency Use Authorization (\u201cEUA\u201d) DoD COVID-19 Vaccine mandate, which they have been notified is imminent, cannot be issued in violation of 10 U.S.C. \u00a71107 [U.S. Code] and its implementing regulations, including DoD Directive 6200.2, the FDA regulation of biologics at 21 C.F.R. \u00a7 50 et seq., as well as the law regarding informed consent 50 U.S.C. 1520 (\u2018The Nuremburg Code\u2019),\u201d the lawsuit added.<\/p>\n Legal analysts cite prior situations that suggest that legal challenges to the COVID vaccine order may fail in court.<\/p>\n \u201cLegally, vaccines under emergency use authorization require service members to grant \u2018informed consent\u2019 to receive one, which they are allowed to withhold,\u201d U.S. News reports. \u201cThe law states a president may override that concern in the \u2018interests of national security,\u2019 according to an analysis from Duke University\u2019s Lawfire blog in February.\u201d<\/p>\n Robert Sanders<\/strong>, chair of the National Security Department at the University of New Haven, pointed to the case of troop vaccination to protect them from anthrax.\u00a0A follow-on case<\/u><\/a>\u00a0found such orders did not violate troops\u2019 constitutional rights because, \u201cThe requirement to place the needs of the nation above a service member\u2019s personal welfare applies in peacetime as well as in war.\u201d<\/p>\n Professor Sanders gave his assessment of legal challenges to the military vaccination order.<\/p>\n \u201cI believe such challenges will fail on the merits under the history of the anthrax vaccine\u2019s military litigation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs are also submitting in their lawsuit expert testimony from\u00a0Dr. Peter McCullough,<\/strong>\u00a0M.D., who is board certified in internal medicine and was the Chief Fellow at William Beaumont Hospital. In addition to being a cardiologist, he also holds a Master\u2019s Degree in Public Health from the University of Michigan. He is currently a Professor of Medicine at Texas Christian University and the University of North Texas Health Sciences Center School of Medicine.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/beckernews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Screenshot-8_19_2021-3_57_08-PM.jpg\")
<\/p>\n