The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents.
The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school.
However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn’t want their child to receive the “vaccines.”
The school was aware that the parents didn’t want their young son vaccinated but decided to give him the injection anyway.
The family responded by suing the school and the district, with the case going to the state Supreme Court.
However, in a landmark ruling, the high court agreed with the school, greenlighting forced vaccinations of children across the state.
Attorney John Klar has warned that the precedent set by the case “threatens every child in America.”
Klar comments on the case in an article for the Federalist.
The young boy was “vaccinated with an experimental COVID-19 intervention against the family’s wishes, and now the Vermont Supreme Court has endorsed the actions by the state actors,” Klar reported.
“The Vermont court had ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) prohibits such claims, granting immunity to school and government personnel when they mandate vaccinations,” he explained.
Following the ruling in Vermont, the case now is being forwarded to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Stunningly, the Vermont Supreme Court did not even pay lip service to the constitutional liberties implicated, ruling against traditional protections of parental rights and informed consent,” Klar explained.
“But the PREP Act is not above the Constitution’s supremacy clause; it’s the other way around.”
Klar warns that the ruling seeks to erase parental rights.
“In Vermont, minor children may obtain transgender hormones and birth control without parental consent, and a 2024 law bars parents from seeing which library books are checked out by their children 12 years and older,” he said.
“Yet these are examples where the child wants something against his parents’ wishes.
“In Vermont’s COVID-19 vaccination case, the child protested and was forced to be jabbed anyway.”
“Tony and Shujen Politella and their son Leo were shocked that their clear expressions of opposition to Leo being vaccinated were ignored,” Klar explained.
“Tony had visited his son’s school with the express purpose of ensuring his child would not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, offering to keep Leo home on the day of an upcoming clinic.
“He was assured Leo would be fine … .”
However, Klar claims that the school had been planning to force the injection onto the child, despite reassuring the parents he would be excluded.
“Leo was given an arm tag displaying another boy’s name and vaccinated despite his vocal protests,” Klar noted.
Then the school refused to explain “how such a gross error occurred.”
Leo now is at a different school, Klar explained.
Then the bureaucracy inflicted a further injury to the family.
“The Vermont attorney general and Vermont court system employed laws designed to grant product liability immunity to Big Pharma to instead insulate incompetent government employees from accountability for their wrongs,” Klar added.
The lawyer said the threat now is that the case has set a precedent.
He notes that other courts “may rely” on its implied preemption by the government of family rights.
“Congress never intended for the PREP Act to abolish fundamental medical ethics or the legal rights of patients and parents,” he explained.
“The PREP Act does not shield public servants from accountability for actions that have nothing to do with vaccine safety or efficacy.
“The Politellas did not sue a vaccine manufacturer for a harmful product; they sued school officials who inflicted very real harm.”
His warning is that those suspicious of various shots now could extend that distrust to schools “and courts that favor negligent or ill-willed works over the rights, and health, of young children.”
Covid mRNA “vaccines” have been linked to a wide range of serious side effects, including sudden deaths and fatal diseases, especially in young people.
In addition, federal health officials have admitted that the injection didn’t prevent someone from getting COVID-19, especially children.
No comments:
Post a Comment