NJ Dem: Wiping Out ICE Is Like Removing Invasive Species or Nazis
Oh, So That's Who Signed Off on the FBI Spy Operation Into the...
Who Are the Real Kings?
Trump Just Called Off Planned Immigration 'Surge' In This City – for Now
Letitia James' ICE Snitch Line Will Backfire on Democrats
The 'Unbiased' Jon Karl Has Another Anti-Trump Book Coming Out, and Trump's Tearing...
Some Democrats Are Sour on Mandela Barnes Running for Wisconsin Governor
Another Day, Another Blow to Platner's Image
Michael Wolff Launches Lawsuit Against Melania Trump After Refusal to Retract Epstein Comm...
Candace Owens Hits a New Low, and Accuses Trump of Assassinating Charlie Kirk
Eric Adams Endorses Andrew Cuomo
DOJ: Guatemalan Man Faces Federal Charges in Tractor-Trailer Crash That Killed 50+ Illegal...
Federal Court Strikes Down Gender Identity Mandates on States, Health Care Providers
Trump Says Ford, General Motors Thanked Him for Tariffs on Mid, Large-Size Trucks
ICE Arrests Two Illegal Alien Fugitives Wanted for Murder of Texas Woman
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