Schools have been given the green light to vaccinate children with Covid-19 mRNA shots without parental consent by the Vermont Supreme Court which ruled that schools are protected under the PREP Act which provides immunity from liability.
The decision by the Vermont Supreme Court opens to the door for educators to further encroach upon the rights and responsibilities of parents by vaccinating children against the wishes of their parents and facing no legal consequences.
The court set the precedent during a case involving a child, labeled L.P. in the original complaint, who was vaccinated in November 2021 at a clinic hosted by the Windham Southeast School District.
L.P. was a student at the district’s Academy School at the time of the forced vaccination.
L.P.’s father told a school official days prior to the clinic the child was not to be vaccinated, court documents say. The school official acknowledged the father’s directive, according to Friday’s ruling.
The school child also reminded the staff that her father did not want her to be vaccinated.
However, clinic workers forced L.P. to have one dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.
According to the school, the child was allegedly “misidentified,” according to the court ruling.
Academy School officials realized the “mistake” and called L.P.’s parents to explain and apologize, which led to L.P.’s parents removing their child from the school.
According to the Vermont Supreme Court ruling on Friday, state and school officials involved in vaccinating the child without parental consent cannot be sued or prosecuted because they are are protected by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which grants liability immunity.
Fox29 report: 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.
