Townhall Celebrates America 250
Where Are the Obamas and the Clintons on the Monsters Taking Over Their...
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 327: God’s Name in the Declaration of Independence
The Leech Has Two Daughters—Give and Give
Don’t Shop at Von’s
Paul Pelosi Faces Potential Criminal Charges After Hit-and-Run Incident
These Patriots Refused to Surrender Their Independence Day Celebrations to a Summer Storm
12 Score and 10 Years Ago
Make Unsubsidized Passenger Rail a Condition of the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern Merger
Obamacare's Fraud Bill Just Came Due
Ellison's Independence Day Video Sparks Backlash Amid Pardon Scandal
Operation Patriot Shield Nets 224 Fugitive Arrests Across Missouri, Illinois
Department of War Awards Mike Rowe’s Foundation $10 Million to Rebuild Skilled Trades
Independence Day Revealed the Death Throes of Peak Woke
Two Men Indicted in $35 Million Medicaid Ambulette Fraud Scheme
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