It's Going to Be a Great Year
What the Hell Is Going on in Iran?
This Might Have Been the Creepiest Line in Zohran Mamdani's Mayoral Address. And,...
A German Woman Reportedly Wanted to Livestream How Safe It Was to be...
Here's the Image That Led to an Awkward Moment for This ESPN Host...
The Minnesota Congressional Delegation Is Demanding Answers and Accountability From Tim Wa...
'Locked and Loaded:' President Trump Issues Warning to Iran As Anti-Regime Protests Enter...
Hospital Horror: Afghan Migrant Arrested After Brutal Attack on UK Nurse
Kathy Hochul Just Did a Major U-Turn on Taxing Tips
Does the Minnesota Fraud Scandal Go All the Way to the Somali Government?...
This Past Year Was Pretty Great. Here's a Wish List for 2026.
Peace Through Strength: Venezuela’s Maduro Suddenly Ready to Negotiate
The ‘Warmth’ of Collectivism Comes With a Body Count — Conservatives Respond to...
Journalist Who Exposed $100M Somali Daycare Fraud Says He’s Now Getting Death Threats
While America Watched the Border, the Cyber Front Exploded
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

Related:

COVID VACCINE

 Critics blasted the ruling.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement