More on the Abbott max anti-vaxx order

Businesses will face a choice that they would rather not have to face.

Companies doing business in Texas face new and complicated challenges after Gov. Greg Abbott this week banned COVID-19 vaccine mandates for all entities in the state — including private businesses — for employees or customers.

The ramifications for businesses could begin as soon as Friday, when companies that enter into contract work with the federal government will be required to have all employees vaccinated under orders from the White House.

This conflicts with Abbott’s ban on vaccine mandates, putting the many Texas businesses that receive federal contracts in a tough position: Comply with federal law and violate Abbott’s ban, or comply with Abbott and turn down business from the federal government.


“This harms Texans directly,” Karen Vladeck, an employment lawyer in Austin, said of the new order from Abbott. “I just think it wasn’t well thought out.”

Abbott’s office did not reply to a request for comment.

On top of prohibiting any entity in Texas from requiring vaccinations, Abbott’s order also lists several expanded exemptions. Vladeck and other employment lawyers said that this adds to the vaccine dilemma facing businesses in Texas. Under Abbott’s new rule, people may opt out of a vaccine requirement for medical reasons, including if they prove they have had COVID-19 in the past, despite scientists widely agreeing that this does not protect people against contracting the virus.

“The executive order’s medical reason language is a bit strange because usually you exempt people for medical reasons if they have a severe allergic reaction to a vaccine,” said Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Abbott’s order is “meant to cover people who don’t want to get the vaccine because they believe, quite wrongly, that they’re completely protected by already having COVID.”

Abbott’s rule also allows people to opt out of a vaccine requirement if they prove they hold a deep personal belief against getting jabbed.

Any entity that fails to comply with Abbott’s rule could receive up to a $1,000 fine.

Abbott’s Monday order is a reversal from his position in August, when the Pfizer vaccine received final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. At the time, Abbott’s spokesperson said that businesses had the option of mandating vaccination for employees and “private businesses don’t need government running their business.”

“It’s all about company choice in Texas, except now it’s come to something that they don’t like what the companies are choosing,” Vladeck said. “It puts a big burden on employers.”

See here for the background. So far, businesses that are also federal contractors, including airlines and companies like IBM, will ignore Abbott’s order, while others are awaiting the OSHA rules before making a decision. Multiple business groups, the same organizations that often turn to the state for a legislative solution to local ordinances they don’t like, harshly criticized Abbott’s order for making their lives more difficult. Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee released a statement encouraging businesses that want to be able to get their employees vaccinated to file a lawsuit against Abbott over the order. And in the end, even wingnut talk radio hosts weren’t impressed by Abbott’s order. It’s almost as if he were a weak, gutless leader.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Bidness, The great state of Texas and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to More on the Abbott max anti-vaxx order

  1. policywonqueria says:


    “We have not yet had the opportunity to consider the merits of these challenges.”


    Supreme Court of Texas
    No. 21-0873
    In re State, Relator
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

    Today we stay enforcement of San Antonio Independent School District’s policy requiring that all its employees be vaccinated for COVID-19 by October 15.

    We grant this relief on our own authority under Rule 52.10(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure while we consider the State’s petition for writ of mandamus. We express no view on the merits of the State’s claims.

    This case, like those regarding local governmental entities’ authority to mandate the wearing of masks, challenges the legality of the Governor’s orders under the Texas Disaster Act. We have not yet had the opportunity to consider the merits of these challenges. Our role has been to issue orders preserving the status quo. In the case of local governmental entities seeking to impose new mask mandates, we stayed temporary-relief orders permitting those mandates. In re Greg Abbott,

    No. 21-0686; In re Greg Abbott, No. 21-0687. When a court of appeals exercised its authority under Rule 29.3 to reinstate a temporary injunction permitting mask mandates, we stayed its order. In re Greg Abbott, No. 21-0720.

    Regarding vaccine mandates, the Governor first sought to ensure that “no governmental entity can compel any individual to receive a COVID-19 vaccine administered under an emergency use authorization” in Executive Order GA-35, issued April 5, 2021. The School District issued its vaccine mandate on August 16, and the State promptly filed suit. On August 20, the School District clarified that it would only mandate vaccines that receive full FDA approval. The FDA granted full approval to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on August 23, and the State
    nonsuited its claims against the School District. Two days later, the Governor issued Executive Order GA-39, barring governmental entities from compelling “any individual to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.” The underlying suit followed on September 9.

    The School District argues that its vaccine mandate is the status quo because it predates the Governor’s order banning all COVID-19 vaccine mandates by a matter of days. It claims that the last actual, peaceable, non-contested status preceding the pending controversy was the five days between its clarification and GA-39’s issuance. However, the Governor asserted his authority to control vaccine mandates at the state level in April, months before the School District implemented its mandate. The status quo between the parties is not local control over vaccine mandates.

    Our exercise of authority under Rule 52.10 to preserve the status quo is not a comment on the decision of the district court to deny the State’s request for a temporary injunction. To obtain a temporary injunction, a party must plead and prove (1) a cause of action against the defendant, (2) probable right to the relief sought, and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2004). We are confident that the court of appeals will expeditiously consider the State’s appeal. 

    The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before the Court. 

    OPINION DELIVERED: October 14, 2021  

Comments are closed.