Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit advocate for civil liberties and improved health outcomes, filed suit on December 16 against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on behalf of US troops that CHD claims have been unfairly penalized for seeking religious exemptions from vaccination requirements. The suit outlines numerous federal statutory and constitutional rights that have been violated by bureaucratic systems that have misled recruits, played games with active-duty military personnel, and undermined US military readiness.
US Troops vs Bureaucrats
CHD was founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who departed as chairman of the board of directors and chief litigation counsel to seek the US presidency and is now serving as secretary of Health and Human Services. Noted for its childhood health advocacy, CHD also pursues a lesser-known mission: supporting military personnel through Guardians of Warriors – Champions of Health. Formed in October 2023, CHD’s military chapter is “devoted to safeguarding the rights, health, and well-being of military service members and applicants, with particular focus on medical autonomy, informed consent, and religious freedom in the military context.”
CHD’s complaint against the US military condemns vague and conflicting advisories that mislead potential recruits and implement “sham policies” that deny the vast majority of religious exemptions while often granting medical exemptions for potentially less healthy troops. The complaint alleges that these fickle policies serve the career goals of military officers and physicians. Pam Long, director of CHD’s Military Chapter, claimed: “Doctors and commanders are trying to achieve 100% compliance on vaccine uptake for their own career-promoting metrics.”
The allegations are reminiscent of Joseph Heller’s satirical anti-war novel Catch-22, which chronicles the heroic but tragic World War II combat pilot who had become disillusioned. He no longer trusted his commanding officers, who had not fought on the front lines but pushed their enlisted troops into extreme danger to further their own careers or to appear brave to their superiors.
Catch-22 Redux
Heller’s sardonic wit summarizes the theme of his work:
“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22. [Lieutenant] Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.”
This parallels military vaccination exemption policies, which essentially translate to: If a recruit is crazy enough to agree to take an ineffective experimental jab, he is promoted in service even if it kills or sickens him; if he is sane enough to seek a moral exemption, he is deemed unfit, and his career is compromised.
The primary assertions of CHD’s lawsuit are that the military’s confusing information system creates “accession ambiguity” that is dishonest to troops and that its “largely theater” process for religious exemptions is deceptive and unfair. Military vaccine policies favor medical exemptions for troops with underlying health issues over religious exemptions of conscience for physically healthy personnel. This does not further combat readiness and treats the two groups disparately. The complaint asserts that these policies violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion, the Due Process Clause, the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993.
Additionally, the suit challenges the alignment of government requirements with the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule, requiring unvaccinated recruits to receive 72 doses of 15 vaccines. CDC alleges “that neither the DOD nor the CDC [has] conducted long-term safety studies on the cumulative effect of administering all of the vaccines on that schedule,” violating the Administrative Procedures Act.
Murderers and Religious Freedom
CHD argues that litigation during COVID-19 exposed these problems, “but mootness prevented structural remedy.” The organization notes, “Multiple federal courts found that DOD’s religious-accommodation processes violated RFRA across all service branches, but Congress rescinded the COVID-19 mandate before any court could enter final judgment or impose structural reforms.”
The complaint draws pointedly on a 2022 dissenting opinion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in Austin v. Navy SEALs, brought by troops challenging the denial of their religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination under a 50-step procedure designed to discourage them. Justice Alito wrote:
“Although more than 4,000 exemption requests had been submitted by February 15, 2022, not a single one had been approved when the complaint in this case was filed. Later Navy directives told service members that they could apply for religious exemptions … but this program, as described by the District Court, was largely ‘theater’ designed to result in the denial of almost all requests.”
Justice Alito contrasted the Supreme Court’s recent decision concerning a death row inmate named John Ramirez to the government’s treatment of the 35 Navy plaintiffs. Ramirez stabbed convenience store worker Pablo Castro (a father of nine) 29 times with a knife to steal $1.25. The Court found that Ramirez had a constitutional liberty to have his pastor “lay hands on him and pray aloud while he is being executed.” Alito opined, “The contrast between our decision in Ramirez yesterday and the Court’s treatment of respondents today is striking. We properly went to some lengths to protect Ramirez’s rights because that is what the law demands. We should do no less for respondents.”
A ‘Hellerious’ Hegseth?
Secretary of War Hegseth bravely engaged with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the “Pete and Bobby Challenge” (50 pull-ups and 100 push-ups in under five minutes). Now he faces a moral challenge in federal court against the compelling arguments of CHD. Data show that 77% of American youth cannot qualify for military service, and the military’s current vaccine exemption policies favor physical weakness over moral strength.
Will Hegseth defend the bureaucratic stonewalling employed by the military to penalize US troops of religious conscience? If he does not defend troop liberties, many prospective young recruits, among the small percentage of their generation who are physically fit to serve, may decline to enlist.
America’s hero warriors should be afforded the same religious liberties as death row murderers. For US troops daring to battle this labyrinth of absurd regulatory perversions, the words of Heller’s condemnation of similar military tomfoolery may come to mind: “The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.”
Dig Deeper Into the Themes Discussed in This Article!
Liberty Vault: The Constitution of the United States
Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
