The War Narrative Has Changed
Oh Boy: Tulsi Gabbard Just Declassified the Docs Behind the 2019 Trump Impeachment...
The 'City of Darkness' Will Pay a Huge Settlement After Punishing Whistleblower
Democrats are Considering the Absolute Dumbest Way to Get Rid of Trump
This Is What Nikki Haley Wants Trump to Do in Iran
Iran Threatens Retaliation Against Trump's Strait of Hormuz Blockade
New York's War on Law Enforcement Continues
NH Senate Candidate Scott Brown Talks Fiscal Discipline, but His Record Tells a...
Stephen Miller Goes Off on the Amnesty-Granting 'Dignity Act'
Inane Op-Ed Illustrates Everything Wrong with Anti-Gun 'Thinking'
CA Makes More Per Gallon of Gas in Taxes Than Oil Companies Do...
Trump: We Can't Let Iran 'Blackmail or Extort the World'
The United States Guarantees the Freedom of the Seas, Not Anyone Else
With Eric Swalwell Out of the Race, Here's a Little Reminder About The...
President Trump Issues a Threat to What's Left of the Iranian Navy as...
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