In a State Rife With Fraud, This Is What Dems Focus on
You Won't Believe How This WaPo Columnist Wants to Reduce Gun Deaths
The Politicization of Motherhood
The Radioactive Jew
The Only Real Cure for Political Violence
Poll: 74 Percent Think America Is Winning War in Iran
Michigan Pharmacy Tech Pleads Guilty to $5.6M Medicare Fraud and Selling Oxycodone to...
Ban SPLC Propaganda from Government Schools Now
'Project Freedom': Trump Orders U.S. Military to Guide Trapped Ships Out of Hormuz...
Ricin Letters, Etched Bullet, and Encrypted Emails: Ohio Man's Terror Campaign Against Pub...
McMorrow Compares Trump to Nazis While Her Party Backs a Candidate With a...
Watch This Amazing Interview With the Hero Principal Who Stopped a School Shooting
Here's Why This U.S. Senate Candidate Got Arrested For Threatening Trump
Two American Service Members Go Missing During Military Exercise in Morocco
America Needs the Bible
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