Clarence Thomas suggests Covid vaccines are derived from the cells of 'aborted children'

[Ms. Toad]

16. He wasn't objecting to the COVID vaccines.

Remember - he is a justice and his job (had the Supreme Court taken the case) is to weigh the objections others have to the vaccines against the law which made them mandatory.

It chose not to take the case. His dissent was to his fellow justices' decision not to hear the case. In other words what he objects to is not the vaccines - but the court's refusal to hear the case. The objection to vaccines is not (necessarily) what he personally believes, and not even how he would have decided the dase. He was merely saying he would have granted the writ (i.e. he believes the Supreme Court should have heard the case).