Headlines at several news outlets deceived readers on Thursday by asserting that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas repeated a “debunked” claim about COVID-19 vaccines from a dissenting point of view.
At least three mainstream news organizations incorrectly mentioned that Thomas declared COVID-19 vaccinations consist of the cells of aborted infants in a viewpoint dissenting from the High court’s refusal to take up a spiritual liberty instance difficult New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate introduced by 16 health care employees.
“Clarence Thomas claimed in a dissenting opinion that Covid vaccines are derived from the cells of ‘aborted children,'” Politico tweeted Thursday, sharing an article with the headline, “Clarence Thomas suggests Covid vaccines are developed using cells of ‘aborted children.’”
Clarence Thomas claimed in a dissenting opinion that Covid vaccines are derived from the cells of aborted children. No Covid vaccines in the U.S. contain the cells of aborted fetuses.— POLITICO (@POLITICO) 1656612160
Comparable headings showed up at Axios as well as at NBC News, and the deceptive claim was spread by Washington Article fact-checker Glenn Kessler as well as others.
Clarence Thomas suggests COVID vaccines are made with "aborted children" https://t.co/hHHG33qtQb
— Axios (@axios) June 30, 2022
Justice Thomas cites debunked claim that Covid vaccines are made with cells from 'aborted children' https://t.co/o4lB6oRioa via @nbcnews
— Adam Edelman (@abedelman) June 30, 2022
It's good the fact checkers are on top of this… oh https://t.co/EB5RSm9J4Q pic.twitter.com/Yf4nSdnlsP
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) July 1, 2022
These headings are false. Thomas was not making a claim regarding the COVID-19 vaccinations. He was quoting the petitioners’ stated ideas regarding how taking the vaccine would violate their religious conscience.
In 2021, a group of private healthcare employees sued New York, suggesting that the state’s vaccine mandate breached their spiritual principles civil liberties. The state needs that all health care employees show proof of vaccination to continue in their employment.
“They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Although Thomas was plainly citing the argument of the petitioners, reporters asserted he was himself claiming that COVID-19 vaccinations contain cells from aborted babies.
Thomas dissenting opinion on the left. “They object”…
And on the right is from the petition of cert he is citing.
He is literally quoting the argument of the petitioners, not making one himself or even agreeing with it. pic.twitter.com/Dq1Of4tHth
— AG (@AGHamilton29) June 30, 2022
Paradoxically, the truths in a few of these reports support what Thomas created despite the fact that the astonishing headings recommend he was wrong.
In Politico’s article, as an example, damaging news reporter Kelly Hooper composes, “None of the Covid-19 vaccines in the United States contain the cells of aborted fetuses. Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in testing during the Covid vaccine development process, a practice that is common in vaccine testing — including for the rubella and chickenpox vaccinations.” (Emphasis included.)
If it’s the case that cell lines acquired from abortions years back were used in vaccine screening, after that the petitioner’s assertion that the injections “were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” which Thomas priced estimate, is a valid declaration.
Ed Whelan, a senior fellow with the Ethics as well as Public Law Center, observed that NBC Information twisted Thomas’ words to make it appear like he was repeating an exposed insurance claim, then later showed up to concur with what the justice really composed.
Quite a weird article by @abedelman @ariabendix. Claims at top that Justice Thomas said covid vaccines "are made with *cells from* 'aborted children.'" But he said they were "developed using *cell lines derived* from aborted children." Not same–and authors agree with latter! 1/ pic.twitter.com/l7muEGBRqe
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) June 30, 2022
“Perhaps authors are claiming that Thomas’s phrasing somehow means that the cell lines used now must have been immediately, rather than ultimately, derived from aborted children. But that’s a bad-faith reading of what he wrote,” Whelan said.
Clarence Thomas’ dissenting point of view quoted the disagreements made by petitioners to the High court for an instance concerning whether New York’s vaccine mandate broke religious freedom rights. He did not progress an insurance claim for himself that COVID-19 injections were made using cells from “aborted children.”
Headlines suggesting that he did so are false.
H/T TheBlaze
