Clarence Thomas suggests Covid vaccines are derived from the cells of ‘aborted children’

Morrison71

HR Legend
Nov 10, 2006
15,341
11,863
113
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissenting opinion Thursday suggested that Covid-19 vaccines were developed using the cells of "aborted children."

The conservative justice's statement came in a dissenting opinion on a case in which the Supreme Court declined to hear a religious liberty challenge to New York's Covid-19 vaccine mandate from 16 health care workers. The state requires that all health care workers show proof of vaccination.

"They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children," Thomas said of the petitioners.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,346
83,003
113
All three of the approved vaccines used fetal cell lines for the testing and/or development of the vaccine.

But no, the vaccines themselves have no baby bits in them.
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissenting opinion Thursday suggested that Covid-19 vaccines were developed using the cells of "aborted children."

The conservative justice's statement came in a dissenting opinion on a case in which the Supreme Court declined to hear a religious liberty challenge to New York's Covid-19 vaccine mandate from 16 health care workers. The state requires that all health care workers show proof of vaccination.

"They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children," Thomas said of the petitioners.
Hold on there fella. There is in fact some truth to what he has said. Now of course these were cell lines from like an abortion that occurred in 1960 or something, and if memory serves, they may have been used as part of research rather than production of the vaccines, but used they were.

The USCCB actually had a pretty good document on this during the early phases of Covid, and concluded quite explicitly that while the use of those cell lines at least tee'd up a moral question, the use of the Covid vaccines was morally acceptable given the countervailing interests in the preservation of life and the rather limited and time-attenuated connection to the cell lines. Now of course, contrary to popular belief, the USCCB does not control what is and is not sufficient for religious freedom objections under the first amendment. So, while the USCCB thinks the vaccines were ultimately fine, it is certainly plausible there are certainly individuals who could make a different moral calculation.

Frankly, as to the cert petition, Covid cases are so 2020.
 

SSG T

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jul 10, 2002
42,309
58,588
113
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissenting opinion Thursday suggested that Covid-19 vaccines were developed using the cells of "aborted children."

The conservative justice's statement came in a dissenting opinion on a case in which the Supreme Court declined to hear a religious liberty challenge to New York's Covid-19 vaccine mandate from 16 health care workers. The state requires that all health care workers show proof of vaccination.

"They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children," Thomas said of the petitioners.

He was reciting the reasoning they were using for their exemption request and suit. He wasn't saying, specifically, that vaccines used aborted fetuses in their production.

However, reading through his dissent, he wither supports their assertion or he's an idiot. Given the reason they wanted a religious exemption was because of the claimed "aborted fetuses" being used, which has been disproven, their reasoning is stupid. Since he supported their contention of getting an exemption, it's either stupid or dishonest. There is no 3rd choice, based of the reasoning of the request.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,346
83,003
113
He was reciting the reasoning they were using for their exemption request and suit. He wasn't saying, specifically, that vaccines used aborted fetuses in their production.

However, reading through his dissent, he wither supports their assertion or he's an idiot. Given the reason they wanted a religious exemption was because of the claimed "aborted fetuses" being used, which has been disproven, their reasoning is stupid. Since he supported their contention of getting an exemption, it's either stupid or dishonest. There is no 3rd choice, based of the reasoning of the request.

People who are strongly opposed to abortion don't want anything to do with products that used fetal cell lines during testing and development.

Never mind that fetal cell lines were used in the testing and development of all sorts of medications, not just vaccines, and they probably unknowingly violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ihawk in FWB

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
93,858
119,584
113
Hold on there fella. There is in fact some truth to what he has said. Now of course these were cell lines from like an abortion that occurred in 1960 or something, and if memory serves, they may have been used as part of research rather than production of the vaccines, but used they were.

The USCCB actually had a pretty good document on this during the early phases of Covid, and concluded quite explicitly that while the use of those cell lines at least tee'd up a moral question, the use of the Covid vaccines was morally acceptable given the countervailing interests in the preservation of life and the rather limited and time-attenuated connection to the cell lines. Now of course, contrary to popular belief, the USCCB does not control what is and is not sufficient for religious freedom objections under the first amendment. So, while the USCCB thinks the vaccines were ultimately fine, it is certainly plausible there are certainly individuals who could make a different moral calculation.

Frankly, as to the cert petition, Covid cases are so 2020.
Justices don't use a lot of throwaway lines in their opinions. He sent a lot of signals this term. He wants a full on culture war.
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,770
5,126
113
Hold on there fella. There is in fact some truth to what he has said. Now of course these were cell lines from like an abortion that occurred in 1960 or something, and if memory serves, they may have been used as part of research rather than production of the vaccines, but used they were.

The USCCB actually had a pretty good document on this during the early phases of Covid, and concluded quite explicitly that while the use of those cell lines at least tee'd up a moral question, the use of the Covid vaccines was morally acceptable given the countervailing interests in the preservation of life and the rather limited and time-attenuated connection to the cell lines. Now of course, contrary to popular belief, the USCCB does not control what is and is not sufficient for religious freedom objections under the first amendment. So, while the USCCB thinks the vaccines were ultimately fine, it is certainly plausible there are certainly individuals who could make a different moral calculation.

Frankly, as to the cert petition, Covid cases are so 2020.
Are you a devout Catholic?
 
May 27, 2010
14,910
18,575
113
People who are strongly opposed to abortion don't want anything to do with products that used fetal cell lines during testing and development.

Never mind that fetal cell lines were used in the testing and development of all sorts of medications, not just vaccines, and they probably unknowingly violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs all the time.
Exactly, it's bizarre to me that religious moral convictions can eschew certain products but ignore the history of others because it's convenient to do so. Here are some of the other products that use or were developed and tested with the use of fetal cell lines:

acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft.
 
Last edited:

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
31,540
65,252
113
Justices don't use a lot of throwaway lines in their opinions. He sent a lot of signals this term. He wants a full on culture war.
"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
pro-life?
That’s a really complicated question but I’ll try my best to answer:
1. Morally, yes. It ain’t a rhinoceros, and it ain’t a blob of cells any more than you or I are ugly bags of mostly water (Star Trek reference).
2. Legally, I think as many that roe was crap reasoning. But I don’t get my rocks off on dobbs at some emotional level like hardcore Catholics, because…
3. I think roberts had the better limited judicial approach, and …
4. As a citizen as a matter of policy I think we were about where we “should have” been prior to dobbs, given that we are a society and tradition that claims to start from a presumption of liberty. (Which, by the way, is the same presumption the church employs with respect to our capacity to sin or not).
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,770
5,126
113
That’s a really complicated question but I’ll try my best to answer:
1. Morally, yes. It ain’t a rhinoceros, and it ain’t a blob of cells any more than you or I are ugly bags of mostly water (Star Trek reference).
2. Legally, I think as many that roe was crap reasoning. But I don’t get my rocks off on dobbs at some emotional level like hardcore Catholics, because…
3. I think roberts had the better limited judicial approach, and …
4. As a citizen as a matter of policy I think we were about where we “should have” been prior to dobbs, given that we are a society and tradition that claims to start from a presumption of liberty. (Which, by the way, is the same presumption the church employs with respect to our capacity to sin or not).
Yep. We don't see eye to eye.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

torbee

HR King
Gold Member
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissenting opinion Thursday suggested that Covid-19 vaccines were developed using the cells of "aborted children."

The conservative justice's statement came in a dissenting opinion on a case in which the Supreme Court declined to hear a religious liberty challenge to New York's Covid-19 vaccine mandate from 16 health care workers. The state requires that all health care workers show proof of vaccination.

"They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children," Thomas said of the petitioners.
That dumb MFer needs to retire or die already. And he can take his psycho biatch wife with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
Justices don't use a lot of throwaway lines in their opinions. He sent a lot of signals this term. He wants a full on culture war.
No doubt, but please recognize that while I wholeheartedly disagree with his substantive due process position, it is one that’s been around before abortion litigation was a twinkle in Jane roes eye.
 

torbee

HR King
Gold Member
People who are strongly opposed to abortion don't want anything to do with products that used fetal cell lines during testing and development.

Never mind that fetal cell lines were used in the testing and development of all sorts of medications, not just vaccines, and they probably unknowingly violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs all the time.
We should allow all of them to be put on a registry and then we can prohibit their access to all medications and treatments that utilized that in research.

I'm very much in favor of this plan.
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
Exactly, it's bizarre to me that religious moral convictions can eschew certain products but ignore the history of others because it's convenient to do so. Here are some of the other products that use or were developed and tested with the use of fetal cell lines:

acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft.
No doubt there is a certain amount of objection of convenience going on wrt Covid vaccines
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
We should allow all of them to be put on a registry and then we can prohibit their access to all medications and treatments that utilized that in research.

I'm very much in favor of this plan.
Trust me. Those types do a really good job of that on their own

(you had me at “preparation h”.)
 

ft254

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2003
14,469
12,058
113
A Supreme Court Justice should be smart enough to not involve themself in this kind of nonsense. He seems to be intentionally drawing attention to himself.

Until lately, other than approval hearings you didn't a Justice even had a voice. Now this clown clamors for attention and speaks at right wing events. A showoff ala the Orange Turd circus.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,346
83,003
113
A Supreme Court Justice should be smart enough to not involve themself in this kind of nonsense. He seems to be intentionally drawing attention to himself.

Until lately, other than approval hearings you didn't a Justice even had a voice. Now this clown clamors for attention and speaks at right wing events. A showoff ala the Orange Turd circus.

Did you even read the story?

He wrote this in a dissenting opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Firekirknow

Moral

HR Legend
Sep 29, 2017
24,391
74,854
113
People who are strongly opposed to abortion don't want anything to do with products that used fetal cell lines during testing and development.

Never mind that fetal cell lines were used in the testing and development of all sorts of medications, not just vaccines, and they probably unknowingly violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs all the time.

That is why I only buy Certified Fetal Cell Free products.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
93,858
119,584
113
No doubt, but please recognize that while I wholeheartedly disagree with his substantive due process position, it is one that’s been around before abortion litigation was a twinkle in Jane roes eye.
So, he's been aggrieved for a long time. Got it.
He's been in the minority for most of the last 35 years, or, at least when he was in the majority it was a thin majority, and the decisions were not nearly sweeping enough. Thomas wants the court to be on steroids. He wants to burn s*** down.
America doesn't want that.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
16,734
17,468
113
Meanwhile, the thread headline has been proven to be false, but the OP hasn't updated it or deleted the thread. I guess Politico can no longer be trusted either.
 

Titanhawk2

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2011
11,954
5,220
113
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissenting opinion Thursday suggested that Covid-19 vaccines were developed using the cells of "aborted children."

The conservative justice's statement came in a dissenting opinion on a case in which the Supreme Court declined to hear a religious liberty challenge to New York's Covid-19 vaccine mandate from 16 health care workers. The state requires that all health care workers show proof of vaccination.

"They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children," Thomas said of the petitioners.
That's been known since 2020
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
So, he's been aggrieved for a long time. Got it.
He's been in the minority for most of the last 35 years, or, at least when he was in the majority it was a thin majority, and the decisions were not nearly sweeping enough. Thomas wants the court to be on steroids. He wants to burn s*** down.
America doesn't want that.
Uh, the issue/debate in question has been out there since well before even Thomas was born; this is not some issue unique to him.

As to Thomas, you really have no idea how wrong you are. No doubt, he has a really quirky if theoretically understandable view -- which i strongly disagree with - that the oath he took was to the constitution, and not to supposedly extraconstitutional (if longstanding) doctrines like stare decisis. So, he decides the cases as he sees them consistent with his original meaning approach, full stop. And he doesn't begrudge his colleagues - or more appropriately the population at large - their beliefs and approaches.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: globalhawk

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
93,858
119,584
113
Uh, the issue/debate in question has been out there since well before even Thomas was born; this is not some issue unique to him.

As to Thomas, you really have no idea how wrong you are. No doubt, he has a really quirky if theoretically understandable view -- which i strongly disagree with - that the oath he took was to the constitution, and not to supposedly extraconstitutional (if longstanding) doctrines like stare decisis. So, he decides the cases as he sees them consistent with his original meaning approach, full stop. And he doesn't begrudge his colleagues - or more appropriately the population at large - their beliefs and approaches.
That is your opinion. I have my own about him. I have read Grandfather's Son. It's laden with grievances. It drips with disdain.
Just because he writes clearly, and aligns with some of your ideologies, that doesn't mean he isn't a nut job. The fact the issues have been around for awhile do not mean I cannot have an opinion on his determination to impose an ideology/will on others just because he drapes originalism over his decisions.
He is also married to a full on Q woman. Nobody stays married to a full on Q without sharing a lot of their views. He was largely silent for decades, but in recent years has grown increasingly vocal in a clearly political tone. And, I have never once found him to be credible when it comes to Anita Hill. Lucky for him he was confirmed back in an era when women were expected to just take harassment. Which, might be why he drips with grievances. He is angry that his sense of entitlement was not validated.