Justice Dept. questionnaire suggests other medicines in addition to Covid-19 vaccines were developed with fetal cells

Dept. of Justice questionnaire

In an extraordinary questionnaire given to federal employees who are requesting a religious exemption from the Biden administration’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate, the Dept. of Justice lists other widely-used medicines reported to have used “fetal cells in their development.”

The reported use of fetal cells in the development of Covid-19 vaccines is a major reason given by people who object to getting the vaccine on religious grounds.

The questionnaire seems to imply that an employee doesn’t have a valid religious exemption on those grounds unless he is also “currently” abstaining from taking “Pepto Bismol, Tylenol, Tylenol Cold & Flue [sic], Aspirin, Motrin, Ibuprofen, Claritin, Lipitor, Zoloft, Ex-Lax, Maalox, Sudafed, Prilosec OTC,” all of which, says the government questionnaire, “have been reported to use fetal cells in their development.”

Do you currently abstain from all of the following medications, which have been reported to use fetal cells in their development: Pepto Bismol, Tylenol, Tylenol Cold & Flue [sic], Aspirin, Motrin, Ibuprofen, Claritin, Lipitor, Zoloft, Ex-Lax, Maalox, Sudafed, Prilosec OTC. [sic]

Department of Justice questionnaire to federal employees claiming religious exemption from Covid-19 vaccine

As part of the process of considering religious exemptions, a federal Deciding Official judges the employees and determines how religious they are, how sincere they are in their objections, and whether their religious practices and beliefs are good enough and deep enough to qualify for an exemption.

You can read the full questionnaire below.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

16 thoughts on “Justice Dept. questionnaire suggests other medicines in addition to Covid-19 vaccines were developed with fetal cells”

  1. “suggests” other medicines in addition to Covid-19 vaccines were developed with fetal cells…

    The military public health “professionals” where I am at just straight up say the list of meds mentioned have in fact used fetal cell lines in their development and/or testing.

    1. It comes down to “proximity” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, 1879 Catholic doctrine on Proximity and moral complicity-how far one is removed from the act) and compliance with evil/abortion. The difference between medications that may have a tangential after the fact association and the vaccines are these COVID vaccines are directly dependent upon these fetal cells for proof of design, production and testing. Medications tested after the fact of their creation are different than vaccines that can’t exist without these cells. These cell lines are unique in that they can easily be “transfected” (genetically engineered) to allow virus invasion into the cell. (Janssen vaccine). The mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna were contingent on thes cell lines for proof of design. Drug companies need to spend millions to prove the concept works. Fetal cells ensure that. The alternative are other animal cells like Chinese hamster ovary cells which also can be transfected but not like the HEK 293 and PEC.c6 cells. That is the decisive difference. Necessity of purpose of those fetal cells. Without them the vaccines don’t exist.

    2. Aspirin was not developed from fetal cells. That is on the list. Therefore their list is suspect. Nobody should comply with the questionnaire. It is equally intrusive and designed to coerce your compliance.
      “400 BC: In Greece, Hippocrates administers willow leaf tea, which contains the natural compound from which aspirin is derived, to women to ease the pain of childbirth.”

  2. This is a morally ambiguous situation. Many, indeed most, of these common drugs were discovered or developed before the HEK-293 fetal cell line was started (that being around 1973). Discovery of aspirin as one example preceded HEK-293 by 120 years so it obviously could not have been developed or tested using the cell line. However most drugs, including aspirin, have since been experimentally tested on the line for various reasons – looking for other uses or determining pathology.

    This means the question isn’t black-or-white now. You could argue logically that aspirin’s common use as a pain relief never required HEK-293 but it’s perhaps not true of its more recent reapplication in low doses for heart health. And since they have done such testing does that mean you have to retroactively apply the principles and stop using completely?

    There’s similar moral and ethical questions in other areas, like animal testing. Do you avoid using products that might no longer test on animals but use knowledge gained previously from it? Then about using simulations to test substances virtually (thus subjecting no living being to a test) but use computer models that were derived from data collected previously from animal testing?

    1. Don’t concede too much. As you and others have pointed out, most of these drugs were initially developed without the use of fetal cell lines, a technology which did not arise until the 1970s. If companies later used fetal cells during additional research, that’s on them, not us.

  3. Pepto Bismol is 100 years old. Illegal abortion to develop? Seems like false framing to me. Or is it just another case of trying to make someone to believe the clearly untrue? Or heck, why not everything at once. Incredible.

    1. Same with aspirin; it preceded the use of fetal-cell research by decades.

      Clearly, the DOJ is expressing hostility to people with religious objections by digging up obscure claims that these other products were largely based on fetal research. It’s the DOJ’s way of bullying. Would they dare challenge Muslim objections to pork in a similar manner, by pointing out that pork is very safe now, and that there is no scientific basis for objecting to it? “Eat that pork, or lose your job!” Or, more bluntly, would they just say, “We don’t care about your religious objections”? Of course not.

  4. Sharyl,
    I submitted a religious exemption to the Navy this week (I am a federal civilian). The Navy’s required form had similar leading questions. The questions seem to be intended to frame the discussion in a way that provides the employer a reason to deny the exemption.
    However, their question only affirms the point of my religious exemption. I am saying that a shot developed in any way from aborted fetuses is wrong. When they say that many other common use products also use aborted fetuses for a product’s development, they affirm how endemic this horrific and inhuman industry is in our society.
    Thank you for your excellent reports! When I saw some of your speeches that you gave several years ago my eyes were opened to how one can listen to news reports and hear the same or similar phraseology on many of the news outlets. I listen to and read news differently now. Not really on-point with the specific article I am responding to at your website today, but just wanted you to know that people are listening, you do make a difference and are greatly appreciated by me!
    Max Dysh

  5. Please don’t fall for this trap if you are requesting a religious exemption most if not all of those medication were developed/created before 1977, when the HEK 293 cell line was first used in medication research. Look up the creation dates. Acetomeniphen was discovered in 1877. Any crested after 1977 were not dependent on fetal cells. Adjunctive testing and creative dependency are not equivalent. They equivocate their deception using the words “reported” to be “developed”.

  6. I went through something similar when helping my husband with his exemption request at the DOD. First of all, read the language they use: “the reported use” of fetal stem cells in their development. There isn’t a fact belying this claim. Most of those drugs were developed decades before the emergence of fetal stem cell lines. Modern research HAS been conducted in which those drugs are tested on cell cultures. But it is a logical fallacy and a manipulation by the government to attempt to use this reasoning as a basis to verify the sincerity of your belief. In fact, vetting your religious sincerity is NOT within the scope of their authority. The Supreme Court has been clear on this point: “your employer is not your substitute priest.”

    Do not answer these questions. Or respond with an answer that is a non-answer. For example: “The government has never previously presumed to insert itself into my daily personal medical decisions, and it does not have a legal basis of authority to do so now. I make each personal medical decision, or personal healthcare choice on the basis of the best, factual information that I can obtain at the time, in conjunction with my private healthcare providers, and in cooperation with the Holy Spirit, after careful contemplation of the facts, and prayerful consideration of my conscience.”

    Here’s another way to rebut this argument. Many agree that torturing someone is unethical. But water boarding is a form of torture. If your conscience moves you to protest waterboarding, is it reasonable for you to stop drinking water, or is it reasonable for you to demand that the government cease USING water to torture people? Most, if not all of the above mentioned medicines were developed decades prior to the genesis of aborted fetal cell lines in medical and technological research, but these medicines were later used in unethical research that incorporates the use of aborted fetal cell lines. Is it reasonable for me to protest by ceasing to consume common, age-old, over the counter medicines, or for me to demand that the government ban such unethical use of aborted children? I choose to do the latter, because in my reasoning, this is the most effective way to address the point of moral concern.

    1. Excellent post. The questionnaire betrays a deep-seated hostility and contempt for people with religious objections to the vaccines. You can almost hear the sneer coming from the people who wrote it. It is not the government’s role to assume the role of arbitrator and sifter of theological views in order to determine their presumed sincerity.

  7. These are gotcha questions. I would ask which of those things they plan to mandate for employees.

    If we believe that our god-given rights to life and liberty include body autonomy and freedom from NON-CONSENSUAL bodily intrusion are inalienable (meaning come from God and no government can override) then that should be our deeply held religious belief and we should all be filing an exemption if we don’t want government dictating our life.. I will not disclose my status to my employer.. It is my private medical record.


Scroll to Top