Friday, 15 November 2024

Six-Year-Old Child Received COVID-19 Shot Without Parental Consent, State Supreme Court Rules Family Cannot Sue School District

100 Percent Fed Up
Hits: 24

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled a family cannot sue their child’s school district after the child was given the experimental COVID-19 shot against their wishes.

The child, labeled L.P. in the original complaint, was six years old when they received the shot.

According to KMPH, the child was “vaccinated at a November 2021 clinic hosted by the Windham Southeast School District and the Vermont Department of Health.”

“L.P. was a student at the district’s Academy School at the time,” the outlet added.

Court documents say L.P.’s father told a school official before the clinic the child was not to be vaccinated.

“The school official acknowledged the father’s directive, according to Friday’s ruling,” KMPH noted.

KMPH reports:

Clinic workers gave L.P. one dose of the Pfizer vaccine after the child was mistakenly given a name tag reading the name of another student, according to the ruling. The second student had allegedly already received a vaccination earlier that day.

L.P. ‘verbally protested,’ saying, ‘Dad said no,'” the ruling reads.

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 court concluded that the PREP Act provided immunity for State and school defendants involved in administering the vaccine to L.P., and that case law from other jurisdictions supported that conclusion. Deciding that defendants’ affirmative defense of federal preemption warranted dismissal, it granted the motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend,” the ruling read.

“We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs’ arguments about preemption are misplaced, and therefore we need not decide today the extent of the PREP Act’s preemptive effect. We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law. We therefore affirm the dismissal because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and not for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” it continued.

“The PREP Act is medical malpractice martial law, and should be repealed. It supersedes all state tort laws and allows cronies at pharmaceutical and medical device companies to literally get away with murder as long as their victims can’t prove there was malicious intent,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has commented about the PREP Act.

From The National Desk:

The high court’s ruling affirms a January 2023 decision by a state superior court.

Windham Southeast Superintendent Mark Speno apologized for the incident in a November 2021 letter to families, according to the Bennington Banner.

“Thankfully, we are not aware of any harm to the student because of this mistake,” the letter reportedly read. “We take our responsibilities to students and families very seriously, and we respect parents’ rights to make health care decisions for their children.”

Read the full ruling HERE.


Source link

Search