COVID vaccine mandate lawsuit: Air Force officers argue shots are 'unproven,' 'unnecessary'

PENSACOLA — Affidavits from the unnamed military personnel — including Air Force officers at Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field — involved in a court challenge to a Department of Defense mandate that military personnel get a COVID-19 vaccination provide some insight into their decisions to participate in the case.

Many of the affidavits included in the case brought by the 16 unnamed military personnel stationed across the United States are simply legal boilerplate, expressing little beyond general legal concerns about the mandate.

See our initial story: Eglin officers in federal court challenge to COVID vaccine mandate

From 2020: First one infected at Hurlburt Field rolls up sleeve for COVID-19 fight

However, a number of the affidavits, including those filed by local military personnel, provide some additional insight into who they are and their reasoning with regard to the vaccine.

As one example, a female Air Force officer stationed at Hurlburt Field who lives in Pensacola said she was ordered on Sept. 10 to get the vaccine by Sept. 30, but was concerned because in her view, all the vaccines available at the time were authorized only for emergency use.

The officer also apparently opted against seeking a religious exemption from getting the vaccine, and stated that she "do(es) not believe that I should be forced to pursue an exemption since the only vaccines available are EUA (offered only under emergency use authorization)."

"I was also encouraged to get the vaccine by my medical provider after I confided in her that I was worried because I have a fertility disorder and don’t have children but want them," the officer wrote, adding later that "I understand that there is impact on menstruation cycles, and I choose not to take the risk."

There have been reports of changes in menstrual cycles connected with the COVID-19 vaccine, and earlier this month the National Institutes of Health awarded five grants to research institutions to study the issue.

Another plaintiff, identified as an Air Force noncommissioned officer (NCO) who lives in Fort Walton Beach, wrote that he objected to an EUA vaccine, but relented "due to the pressure that I was told of full force removal," an apparent reference to the possibility of being separated from the Air Force for refusing the vaccine.

The NCO contends, "I now have suffered actual injury because I cannot undue [sic] receiving the vaccine, despite the fact that I have multiple concerns over it, including religious and medical."

A third plaintiff, identified as an Air Force officer in Fort Walton Beach, contended that he contracted COVID-19 in October 2020, and when he was tested for antibodies in September of this year, he was found to "retain a high number of antibodies ... ."

Despite that, the officer asserts, he "was told having a prior COVID-19 infection is irrelevant."

Subsequently, he wrote, "I received notice ... that I was scheduled for COVID-19 vaccination ... and that it was a direct lawful order."

After his medical exemption request was denied, the officer wrote, he opted to pursue a religious exemption. During a counseling session involving his squadron commander, he said, "They let me know that even if my religious exemption request got granted, their intent was to no longer send me on deployments and disqualify me from being upgraded to my next crew position."

That move, the officer said, represents "permanent damage to my Air Force career as a pilot."

The lawsuit, in which 14 men and two women serving in the military are named as plaintiffs, names U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, three U.S. military service secretaries and other federal officials as defendants.

The legal action filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola is spearheaded by attorneys associated with the nonprofit organization Defending the Republic, a conservative nonprofit organization operated by Sidney Powell.

Powell was the attorney who was deeply involved in unsuccessful efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election on behalf of former President Donald Trump. Defending the Republic operates as a 501(c)4 nonprofit, meaning that it is a "social welfare" organization to which contributions are not tax-deductible.

Department of Defense spokeswoman Lisa Lawrence had no detailed comment on the lawsuit Tuesday.

“We do not comment on pending litigation," she said in an email, referring questions instead to the Department of Justice.

In addition to asking that the court halt implementation of the DoD vaccine mandate, the lawsuit asks, among other things, that the court rule that "all (p)laintiffs with natural immunity due to previous infection are entitled to a medical exemption."

Beyond that, the lawsuit seeks to have the court issue "a declaratory judgment that the DOD Mandate infringes upon (p)laintiffs’ constitutional right to refuse unwanted, unnecessary, and unproven medical treatment, imposes unconstitutional conditions and violates (constitutional provisions addressing) equal protection (of the law)." 

The lawsuit hits a number of hot-button conservative issues, asserting at one point in a filing seeking a temporary restraining order on the vaccine mandate that the plaintiffs want the court to address "the larger questions raised by federal vaccine mandates, in particular, whether ... federal agencies may make 100 million or more unvaccinated Americans second-class citizens, unable to serve their country, work, attend school, or participate in the (n)ation's economic and cultural life."

The filing contends that the 16 plaintiffs "do not assert a generic right to refuse a vaccination" but are instead asserting "a right to refuse mandatory medical treatment that is 'not proven,' 'unnecessary,' and 'has not been shown to have any therapeutic effect'" in that it is still possible to contract and transmit COVID-19 even after being vaccinated. 

The lawsuit also asserts that vaccine mandates are unfair due to "systematically excluding those entering or remaining in the country illegally ... ," and contends that as a result, "service members sworn to uphold the Constitution and defend our borders, are treated less favorably than unauthorized aliens who flout our laws and refuse vaccination."

In the latest court action, Department of Justice attorneys on Tuesday filed a status report in the case in which they represent Austin, the three service secretaries, Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Xavier Becerra and U.S. Food and Drug  Administration Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock.

The government attorneys indicated that they would file a response to the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order, and a related request for a permanent injunction on the vaccine issue, in 14 days.

According to other court documents, the plaintiffs' reply to the government response would then be due by Nov. 2.