The Supreme Court’s Reckoning: Protecting Liberty from Vaccine Overreach

Guest Opinion By Beverly Hansen, RN, MBA

As a nurse with more than 40 years of experience, I never thought I would end my career fighting so strongly for informed medical consent. Yet here I am. My ancestors came to this country, fought in the American Revolution for the Constitution, and gave us the Republic we now enjoy. Over the past five years, that same Constitution has been under attack, and it is our duty as citizens to stand up.

America was born by resisting tyranny. Now, the Supreme Court’s recent actions in Miller v. McDonald and Does v. Hochul show a long-overdue correction. On December 8, 2025, the Court overturned a lower court’s dismissal in Miller and sent it back to be reviewed under the strict standards of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In Does, the Court asked the Solicitor General for input, a rare move that shows how seriously they are taking New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. These are not small steps. They are loud warnings against the erosion of our constitutional rights during times of crisis.

Think about the human cost. In Miller, Amish families in New York face crushing fines for refusing vaccines that go against their faith. The lower court brushed aside their claims, treating First Amendment rights as optional. The Supreme Court’s action makes clear: religious liberty is not negotiable. It is the foundation of our diverse society. Calling these cases “frivolous” is not justice, it is failure.

Does v. Hochul goes even deeper. Healthcare workers, once praised as heroes, were fired for seeking religious exemptions. They say New York unlawfully revoked those exemptions, forcing them to take shots they did not consent to. Attorneys argue these were not “safe and effective” treatments but forced medical interventions that ignored informed consent and due process. The state treated workers like replaceable parts, not human beings with rights. By asking for the Solicitor General’s view, the Court is questioning whether emergency powers can override the Constitution forever.

But this fight is not only about COVID mandates. It reverberates through the entire childhood vaccine schedule, which has grown so large and aggressive that many parents feel trapped. Families are pressured to comply with dozens of shots before a child even reaches kindergarten, often without space for questions, exemptions, or true informed consent. The insanity of this schedule, layered with mandates for school attendance, and financial performance payments for the physicians that administer them show how far government and industry have gone in treating children’s bodies as property of the state. The rulings in Miller and Does send a message: constitutional rights do not vanish because a bureaucrat says, “public health.”

The COVID era revealed how “public health” can morph into unchecked power. Governors issued orders, agencies and corporations enforced them, and courts looked the other way. People lost jobs, communities were divided, and trust in institutions collapsed. From the start, America’s Front-Line Doctors (AFLDS) fought back, filing lawsuits to protect those coerced into experimental injections. They reminded us: our rights come from God, not government. The Constitution exists to guard against this kind of coercion.

Critics will say this is “science versus superstition.” But real science depends on open debate, not forced mandates. These mandates ignored natural immunity, ethical standards, and the Nuremberg Code’s demand for consent. They tore communities apart and left scars that institutions now struggle to heal. And when applied to children, the stakes are even higher, parents must be free to decide what enters their child’s body, without fear of punishment or exclusion.

The Court’s actions bring back balance. In Miller, the grant-vacate-remand forces lower courts to take religious claims seriously under the First Amendment. In Does, the Court shines a spotlight on whether New York’s mandate can survive true constitutional review. These cases mark a turning point. Pandemic rules were not just mistakes, they were a test of our republic, and we barely passed.

Thank God AFLDS continues to fight for medical freedom and accountability. Lawmakers must remember: crises challenge liberty, but they do not erase it. The Supreme Court’s decisions remind us that justice delayed is justice denied, but justice reclaimed is liberty restored.

Let these rulings be a wake-up call. Pay attention. Speak out. Protect your future and that of your children. When we defend the Amish parent’s plea, the nurse’s exemption, or the parent questioning the childhood vaccine schedule, we defend everyone. Our rights come from God and are secured by the Constitution. No state has the right to destroy lives, livelihoods, or the principle of informed consent. My body or my child’s body is my choice.

Connect with Beverly through her website: www.clinicalbrainiacs.com

Beverly Hansen, RN, MBA, is the founder and CEO of Clinical Brainiacs, a healthcare consulting firm known for driving innovation and transformation across the industry. With more than 20 years of experience in clinical care, executive leadership, and digital health strategy, Hansen specializes in value-based care, operational management, and healthcare innovation.

She has helped healthcare organizations and startups achieve measurable results—securing over $330 million in funding, managing multimillion-dollar contracts, and leading initiatives that improve clinical and operational outcomes.

A registered nurse with deep roots in acute care and an MBA from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Hansen blends clinical insight with business strategy to help clients navigate complex healthcare challenges. She also serves on advisory boards supporting emerging healthcare solutions and technologies.

Hansen’s book, White Noise-Dark Impact: Are We Damaging Children's Brains? is available at https://stan.store/ClinicalBrainiacs/p/white-noisedark-impact

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.