Virginia Republican Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin has disappointed conservatives everywhere, as new reports indicate that he will allow local mask and vaccine mandates to be implemented, including in schools for grades k-12.

Though Youngkin says that he will not impose mask and vaccine mandates himself, he will also not block localities and public schools in Virginia from doing so. This move differs from other Republican governors who are blocking localities from implementing mandates in their respective states.

Tired of the ads? Go Ad-Free and Get EXCLUSIVE Content From Stew Peters and the RVM Team, Become a PREMIUM USER

“Localities are going to have to make decisions the way the law works and that is going to be up to individual decisions but, again, from the governor’s office, you won’t see mandates from me,” Youngkin said, according to WRIC.

Youngkin has said that he is a “staunch supporter” of the COVID-19 vaccines, something that many of the people who voted for him will not be happy to hear.

“My family has gotten it. I’ve gotten it. I think it’s the best way for people to protect themselves,” Youngkin added.

This is a stark contrast to what Youngkin was saying while campaigning. During a debate in September, he slammed his Democrat opponent Terry McAuliffe for wanting “employers to fire employees who don’t get the vaccine,” according to The Associated Press.

When Youngkin was pressed on whether he believes that getting vaccinated against “measles, mumps or rubella is a personal choice,” the Republican responded by saying that “the data associated with those vaccines is something that we should absolutely understand the difference between this vaccine.”

Experts like Dr. Ben Carson have spoken out against the FDA approving COVID-19 vaccines for children, saying that the jabs have had adverse effects on kids.

< Sign the petition: Ban Federal Vaccine Mandates! >

Would You Take A Vaccine For Monkeypox?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Red Voice Media, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

“We don’t know what the long-term impact of these vaccines is, so this is really sort of a giant experiment. Do we want to put our children at risk, when we know that the risk of the disease to them is relatively small, but we don’t know what the future risks are, why would we do a thing like that?” Carson said earlier this month, according to Newsweek. “It makes no sense whatsoever.”

“And, also, getting to this whole ideal of natural immunity, there have been a number of studies that have shown that it is very, very effective. You look at the Cleveland Clinic study, 1, 300 of their health care workers who had been previously infected, none of them got reinfected,” he added. “So, I know the CDC is coming out with their recommendations and trying to spin things their way. But we ought to look at all of the data.”

Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.