Vermont Supreme Court Rules Against Parents in ‘Accidental’ Vaccination of Child
Updated
Imagine this: Your 6-year-old child, let’s call him Sal, attends public school. You learn that the school district has entered into an agreement with the state for a COVID-19 vaccination clinic at school. Parental consent is necessary in order to vaccinate Sal. You don’t want your child vaccinated, so not only do you not sign the consent forms, but you also take the time to speak with the assistant principal at the school about your desire. Not to worry, the principal says, Sal can’t be vaccinated without your consent.
Then, on the day of the clinic, Sal is removed from class. A worker places a name tag on him that reflects the wrong name and date of birth. Sal knows that he isn’t supposed to be vaccinated, and he protests as he is taken to the clinic where they end up vaccinating him forcibly. The employees then write the wrong name on his vaccine card and place it in his book bag. At some point, they realize their mistake, and you get a call from the school letting you know that Sal was vaccinated against your (and his) wishes.
Nightmarish, right? Well, that is what happened to Dario and Shujen Politella at Academy School in the Windham Southeast School District in Vermont. The parents sued various state and school defendants, but their complaint was dismissed under the PREP Act. Recently, they appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, hoping for some accountability. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court also affirmed the lower court’s decision.
The court ruled that because the school was a public school, and because the clinic was state run, all of the defendants named in the suit were exempt from any liability under the PREP Act. In March of 2020, Health and Human Services director Xavier Becerra filed an amendment to the PREP Act that extended liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19 that were authorized under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. This amendment has been renewed each year since. The amendments remove liability for all acts that are not considered “willful.” You can see the gray area, yes?
This is the reason many of us in the health freedom space have been yelling about PREP from the rooftops. I would like you to assume the school was well meaning here, and truly made a “mistake” when they took a child out of class and slapped a name tag on him. That name tag indicated that he was a child in an entirely different grade, in an entirely different class, who had already been vaccinated that day. Assume it was just an honest mistake when the state employee then forcibly vaccinated the “wrong” child for COVID, as he protested and let the employee know that “dad said no!” Even if this were the case, as the school alleges, under PREP, parents have absolutely no recourse. Thankfully, at least so far, the child isn’t injured by that shot, however that doesn’t change the fact that the child’s parents didn’t want him to receive it at all!
What if the child was injured by the shot? Or what if the child suffers health problems in the future? The issues here are several fold. The child’s parents will have nowhere to go to recoup accountability for their young child. They will have nowhere to go to recoup healthcare costs for that child. They will have nowhere to go to receive any help, acknowledgement or assistance.
Separately, it raises other issues. What is to stop public school and state officials from making these sorts of “mistakes” in the future? It is clear that not even meeting with school officials to impress upon them the seriousness of your demand that your child not be injected with an experimental gene therapy is enough. Must you remove your child from school that day? Must you remove them from state run school altogether? Must you shadow your child that day to ensure they are kept safe from the grabby hands of school officials, who seem all too happy to vaccinate your child against their wishes?
And the questions discussed above aren’t even the most serious ones. What about bodily autonomy? Do every day Americans realize that their right to their own bodies has been subjugated to such an extent? That if there is a “mistake” made they have no recourse whatsoever? That the definition of “willful” is loose, at best? That proving “willful” intentions would be nearly impossible in a court of law, when all it takes to define a “mistake” is for some state employee to say “Whoops! Sorry about that!?”
With the PREP Act amendments looming in the foreground, and understanding the ease with which bureaucrats determine “health emergencies,” what is to stop the government from declaring them over and over each time they want to mandate the public receive a new “Big Pharma” cocktail? With this decision in Vermont, residents can have zero confidence that their children are safe at school, and zero faith (in my opinion) that these “whoops! We accidentally thought your kid was someone else” mistakes won’t happen.
When this “mistake” occurred, the Superintendent of the district, Mark Speno said that staff were “deeply sorry that this mistake happened” and that they had “worked internally to improve” their screening procedures. He also went on to “reassure” parents that “the Health Department has worked to evaluate its procedures to ensure that this does not happen again.” Thankfully, he said “we are not aware of any harm to the student because of this mistake.” Note the repetitive use of the word “mistake” in his statements.
Thankfully, “he wasn’t harmed” is right. But if there were harm, the court system in Vermont has determined that under Federal Law, parents would have zero recourse for their child. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
This case should be appealed, yet again, to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Vermont did in fact leave that door crooked slightly open for these Plaintiffs. It is time for the courts in this country to take a firm look at the rights enshrined to us by our Creator and affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. Fortunately, organizations like ICAN are leading the charge to defend these rights in court. Consider supporting them in this quest again, today.