Vermont’s Supreme Court has ruled that schools in the state can begin vaccinating children without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
The state’s high court ruled that school officials will get the final say on vaccination and can vaccinate kids against their parents’s wishes.
Families will no longer be able to sue their children’s schools over forced vaccination following the ruling.
Vermont’s Supreme Court made the decision while ruling on the case of a then-6-year-old who was given a Covid mRNA shot without the parents’ consent.
The court ruled that the family could not sue their child’s school district over the forced vaccination.
The child, labeled L.P. in the original complaint, 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 young child’s father told a school official days before that the child was not to be vaccinated, court documents say.
The school official acknowledged the father’s directive, according to the high court’s ruling.
Clinic workers claimed they 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.
Academy School officials eventually realized the error and called L.P.’s parents to apologize.
The family later removed their child from the school, according to the ruling.
The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday that state and school officials involved in the matter are protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.
The legislation 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, despite the shots being ineffective against Covid while running a high risk of dangerous side effects for children.
The ruling reads:
“To avoid dismissal on immunity grounds, plaintiffs would have had to present well-pleaded 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 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.”
the first person that does this should be made an example of ..an example of what happens when you fck with another mans/woman’s child