Trump Clinches Major Win in California National Guard Deployment Spat With Gavin Newsom
US Attorney Escapes Knife Attack From Deranged Illegal Alien in Albany
WaPo Reporter Spends Time Acting As an Artillery Spotter for Iran, and Lies...
Could John Fetterman Be the Next Bill Clinton?
Democrats Can Say 'Hitler' All Day Long, Forget 'Fact Checks'
The FBI’s Mission Matters Now More Than Ever
Expanding the Child Tax Credit Strengthens American Families
Israel's Stunning Victory Over Iran -- And 2 Big Lies Debunked
Jew Haters R Us
Fast-Changing Events Making, or Remaking, History
Expert Panel on Israel’s War Against Iran Interrupted by Iranian Missile Attack
Ayatollahs Akin To Modern-Day Nazis, Consul General for Israel Says
Karoline Leavitt Has a Message for Jasmine Crockett's Latest Line of Attack Over...
Mainstream Media Still Spreading Falsehoods About Aid for Gaza and Attacks on Palestinians
Sheldon Whitehouse Receives Some Unwelcome Beach Club Reminders With His Juneteenth Post
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

 Critics blasted the ruling.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement