06-07-2021, 01:13 PM
Divorce court judge orders Texas father of four
to be vaccinated before seeing his children
Chris Staley explained his understanding that his ‘civil rights were kind of
violated there, whenever a judge is ordering me to take a vaccination.’
June 4, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – A Texas man has been ordered by the judge presiding over his divorce to receive a vaccine against COVID-19 in order to see his four children, FOX26 Houston reported.
District Judge Travis Kitchens handed down the vaccine order as part of the requirements in the divorce proceedings for Chris Staley to qualify for visitation with his children, according to court records seen by FOX26.In fact, a May 10 court summary detailed the judge’s requirement that “[b]oth parents are to get vaccinated for COVID by end of this week.”
Staley, who lives roughly two hours from his wife and four children, stated that he “didn’t agree” with the judge’s vaccine order on the grounds that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ® signed an April 5 executive order “prohibiting state agencies or political subdivisions in Texas from creating a ‘vaccine passport’ requirement, or otherwise conditioning receipt of services on an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination status.”
Staley explained his understanding that his “civil rights were kind of violated there, whenever a judge is ordering me to take a vaccination,” emphasizing that, as things stand, the available vaccines for COVID are “not FDA approved.”
Staley’s concern arises from the terms under which all of the currently available vaccines against COVD-19 are marketed in the U.S. As things stand, the mRNS vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna, as well as the attenuated viral vaccine from Johnson & Johnson, are all approved for use under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “emergency use authorization” (EUA) protocol.
EUAs are granted to medications for which there is a perceived immediate need but which have not yet been through the rigors of a fully FDA-licensed drug. This renders EUA products experimental, with attending legal differences from their licensed counterparts.
“[T]hey really have no idea what the side effects could be down the road, you know — what it could do to me in a year or five years,” Staley said.
The FDA states that as EUA products, each vaccine is “an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication,” and the agency requires that all “promotional material relating to the COVID-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously … state that this product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA.”Furthermore, federal law states, “to protect public health,” that all manufacturers of products authorized for emergency use are required to provide “[a]ppropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product[url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=21-USC-309474065-1242874613&term_occur=999&term_src=title:21:chapter:9:subchapter:V:part:E:section:360bbb%E2%80%933][/url], of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”
In fact, based on federal law, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) chairman Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a citizen petition with the FDA to immediately overturn the EUA given to COVID vaccines, in the hope that full licensing may be prohibited.
Kennedy cited the stipulation “that to grant EUA status, no other effective intervention may exist.” But since ivermectin has been proven to reduce the severity of illness arising from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as well as working as an effective prophylactic, Kennedy said the FDA should fulfil its obligation to “immediately amend its existing guidance for the use of chloroquine drugs, ivermectin, and any other safe and effective drugs against COVID.”
Kennedy also made efforts to remind FDA officials that they are duty bound to “ensure all parties are aware of the ‘option to accept or refuse’ administration of all EUA products and that alternatives are available.”
Despite Staley’s hesitation and justifiable concerns about vaccine safety, the judge “pretty much told me and her both that we were to get a COVID vaccination,” he said.
Staley refused to take one of the experimental jabs before the deadline against the advice of not only the judge, but also his own lawyer, Lana Shadwick, who counseled Staley to take the vaccine and not to challenge Kitchens’ ruling.Shadwick advised that Kitchens will be “the one who’s going to set my visitations and be the one that handles all my stuff — pretty much be the lawyer who oversees my case until my kids are 18 and that it would be in my best interest not to upset him, and she pretty much said you probably should just go get [the vaccine],” informed Staley.
Regardless, the father of four decided to spend the following weekend with his children, technically in violation of the court order. “[I] kind of rolled with it and just kind of took my kids for the day without anyone saying whether I’ve gotten this vaccination or not,” he said.
Neither Staley nor Shadwick were able to be reached for comment before publishing.
Staley is reportedly awaiting a court hearing in July to determine custody of his children.