Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.1K

direct link (x.com)

They said that as long as authorities say a mandate is for “public health,” then the courts shouldn’t question them.

…

This means that the Ninth Circuit’s egregious ruling—that it doesn’t matter whether a shot stops transmission or infection, all that matters is that a state official could have believed a shot would help individual members of the public—will stand.

[direct link](https://x.com/theHFDF/status/2056509036103958977) > They said that as long as authorities say a mandate is for “public health,” > then the courts shouldn’t question them. > > … > > This means that the Ninth Circuit’s egregious ruling—that it doesn’t matter > whether a shot stops transmission or infection, all that matters is that a > state official could have believed a shot would help individual members of > the public—will stand.
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (14).
[–] • 1 pt

Yup. And anyone the court considers an “authority” can force you to get medicated for “public health”, even if it wouldn’t prevent you from catching or spreading anything.

[–] • 1 pt

So, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest if a pharmaceutical employee just say that it's a "public health" mandate, when they force you to take an AIDS cocktail for which only they own the patent for?

[–] • 1 pt

In the case that was ruled on it was someone in state public health who made the mandate, so I doubt a pharmaceutical company could count, but the pharmaceutical company could just make the state health authority set the mandate for them.