Fundamental-right-to-refuse-medical-treatment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is there a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses to exercise informed consent freely and refuse unwanted medical treatment with an experimental vaccine that is not effective at preventing transmission of disease, is not safe and can cause serious injury or death? What standard of review is appropriate under Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), or this Court’s subsequent jurisprudence, when this liberty is at stake? 2. Did Rutgers University lack expressly delegated authority to mandate experimental vaccines during an outbreak that were not effective, or safe, upon its students — even students attending classes remotely — while excluding professors or employees from the mandate? 3. Did Rutgers University’s mandate conflict with Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, which requires “that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed .. . of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product ...”? 4. Were the courts below bound to accept as true the following facts, among others, plead by Petitioners? a. COVID-19 vaccines are experimental injections; b. COVID-19 vaccines were never tested for and are not effective at preventing infection or transmission of disease; u ce. COVID-19 is not a vaccine-preventable disease; d. COVID-19 vaccines have caused serious injury and death to thousands of people; and e. Rutgers was conflicted from imposing any COVID-19 vaccine mandate due to financial ties with vaccine manufacturers, its involvement in clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines, and its stake in the approval and widespread dissemination and use of COVID-19 vaccines arising from its own research to develop a novel COVID-19 vaccine.