Did The New York Times Criticize 'Epic Fury' Using the Man Investigated for...
Gavin Newsom Is Many Things. 'Pro-Family' Is Not One of Them.
Donald Trump Is a Great Man of History
So, What Is Normal?
JFK's Grandson Proves the Networks Still Bend the Knee to Kennedys
Trump Avoiding Repeating History in Iran
Men Are Back
The Supreme Court Should Protect Children From Predators
America Must Lead the Charge Against the Political Abuse of Religion
The Rules Were Never Meant for Them
The U.S. Needs Japan More Than Ever
For America’s 250th Birthday, Make the Senate Great Again
Tony Gonzales Suspends Campaign After Finally Admitting to the Affair He Denied for...
State Department Says That U.S., Venezuela Have Re-Established Diplomatic Relations
Federal Court Sentences Illegal Alien to Prison for $343K SNAP Benefits Fraud
Tipsheet

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

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