Here's What a CNN Host Said About Tim Walz That Left Scott Jennings...
What ICE Agents Did After Eating Lunch at a Mexican Restaurant in MN...
Wait, That's How a Local Minnesota Dem Described the Leftist Violence Against ICE
Lawrence O'Donnell's Selective Outrage at Vulgarity, and Abby Phillip Gets Debunked by Abb...
Jacob Frey Cannot Get His Way
How China Sold America the Wind Turbine Scam
Food Wars
Israel’s October 7 Wartime Heroes, Both Celebrated and Unsung
Orange County Man Arrested for Alleged Instagram Death Threats Against VP JD Vance
Hannity Grills Democrat Shri Thanedar After He Admits Voting Against Deporting Illegal Sex...
$68 Million Medicaid Fraud: Two Plead Guilty Over Brooklyn Adult Day Care Scheme
The Trump Administration Just Announced New Tariffs on Countries Deploying Troops to Green...
Minneapolis Alleged Gang Member, Felon Charged After Allegedly Stealing Rifle From FBI Veh...
JD Vance Just Destroyed This Indiana Republican for Failing to Act on Redistricting
The Highs and Lows of Nepalese-Israeli Relations
Tipsheet

Court Hands Down 'Unconscionable' Ruling in Case About School That Gave Vaccine to Child Without Consent

AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled last week that a family whose child was vaccinated against COVID-19 without consent cannot sue the school district. 

Despite the father informing a school official prior to the November 2021 clinic that he did not want his child vaccinated—and the child verbally protesting (“Dad said no”)—the child was given one dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine after accidentally wearing the name tag of another student, the ruling states. According to Crisis in the Classroom, "The second student had allegedly already received a vaccination earlier that day." 

Advertisement

Academy School officials eventually realized the error and called L.P.'s parents to apologize, who later removed their child from the school, according to the ruling. 

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday state and school officials involved in the matter are protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which provides liability immunity. In the event of a public health emergency, the PREP Act ensures certain "covered persons" are immune from claims causally related to the use of a "covered countermeasure." A vaccine is considered a covered countermeasure.

"To avoid dismissal on immunity grounds, plaintiffs would have had to present wellpleaded allegations showing that (1) at least one defendant was not a covered person, (2) some conduct by a defendant was not causally related to administering a covered countermeasure, (3) the substance injected into L.P. was not a covered countermeasure, or (4) there was no PREP Act declaration in effect at the time L.P. was injected," the ruling reads.

The high court's ruling affirms a January 2023 decision by a state superior court. (CITC)

Advertisement

Related:

COVID VACCINE

 Critics blasted the ruling.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement