Appeals Court Backs Forced Vaccination of Children without Parental Consent

An appeals court has backed efforts to vaccinate children without parental consent by shielding those who force kids to take Covid shots.

A North Carolina Court of Appeals issued the ruling in the case of a clinic, where personnel gave a 14-year-old boy a Covid mRNA shot without consent from the child or his parents.

The mother of the boy sued the Guilford County school board and Old North State Medical Society over her teenage son’s forced COVID-19 vaccination in 2021.

However, appellate judges agreed that a federal law protected both defendants from legal liability.

The court ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) protected the clinic and its staff.

Additionally, the court concluded that the Guilford Board of Education, which hosted the clinic, was also covered by the PREP Act.

In August 2021, 14-year-old Tanner Smith was a Western Guilford High School football player.

His family learned in a letter from the Guilford schools that he might have been affected by a COVID-19 “cluster” involving the team.

He would not be allowed to return to practice until getting a Covid test.

Free testing would be provided at Northwest Guilford High School.

Smith’s stepfather drove him to the testing site and waited outside. The teenager was asked to fill out a form while a clinic worker tried unsuccessfully to contact his mother, Emily Happel. The clinic was providing COVID-19 vaccine shots along with testing.

Judge April Wood wrote:

“After failing to make contact with Tanner’s mother, one of the workers instructed the other worker to ‘give it to him anyway.’

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

“Tanner stated he did not want a vaccine and was only expecting a test, but one of the workers administered a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to him.”

Tanner’s step-father who was waiting outside the clinic was not called.

Despite calling the act of forcing a child to get a COVID-19 shot against his will and without his parent’s consent, “egregious,” the court unanimously concluded that the PREP Act preempted state law.

The judges declared that the PREP Act protected the defendants from being held liable for battery, violation of Tanner’s mother’s constitutional liberty and parental rights, and violation of Tanner’s bodily autonomy and plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights.

Tanner made it clear to the clinic workers that he was there for a COVID-19 test and not for the Covid shot.

He asserted that he did not want a shot.

However, one of the clinic workers was heard to have said, “Give it to him anyway.”

Despite his protest and the clinic’s failure to get parental consent, Tanner was given a Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty mRNA Covid injection.

Tanner and his mother sued the school district and the vaccine clinic alleging battery, violation of Tanner’s mother’s constitutional liberty and parental rights, violation of Tanner’s bodily autonomy, and violation of plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights.

The trial court dismissed the complaint due to the PREP Act shielding the defendants and the decision was appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

While North Carolina state law provides that “a health care provider shall obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering any vaccine that has been granted emergency use authorization and is not yet fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to an individual under 18 years of age,” the court found that the PREP Act pre-empts state law.

The court acknowledged that the intent of the state law is to protect bodily autonomy and parental rights and that the violation suffered by the plaintiffs when Tanner was given the shot against his wishes was outrageous.

However, the court ultimately concluded that the federal PREP Act preempted the state statute.

The court wrote:

“Its intent is to prevent the egregious conduct alleged in the case before us, and to safeguard the constitutional rights at issue—Emily’s parental right to the care and control of her child, and Tanner’s right to individual liberty.

“Notwithstanding, the statute remains explicitly subject to ‘any other provision of law to the contrary’ under the broad provision preempting state law in the PREP Act.”

The PREP Act, which went into effect in 2005, states that when the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) declares that a disease, health condition, or threat to public health or threat of same constitutes an emergency, the Secretary may recommend the use of one or more countermeasures.

The PREP Act provides:

Subject to the other provisions of this section, a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure.

The court pointed out that this immunity extends to “any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.”

The PREP Act also has a broad provision preempting state law that provides that no state law may be in effect that conflicts with the PREP Act.

To further define who was covered or granted immunity under the PREP Act, the Secretary set forth a declaration on Mar. 17, 2020, that defined “covered persons” as including, “manufacturers, distributors, program planners, and qualified persons, and their officials, agents, and employees, and the United States.”

The court concluded that the Covid shot given to Tanner was considered a covered countermeasure.

The court held that ONS Medical Society was considered a “covered person” under the PREP Act as a program planner and community group that administered a vaccine clinic and provided vaccines to patients.

The court further found that the school board was granted immunity under the PREP Act as it was a “state or local government…[that] provides a facility to administer or use a Covered Countermeasure.”

The court wrote:

Bound by the broad scope of immunity provided by the PREP Act, we are constrained to hold it shields Defendants, under the facts of this case, from Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine.

The Appellate Court held that the injury to Tanner, vaccination against his wishes and without his parents’ consent, is considered under the PREP Act because the PREP Act is extremely broad, providing immunity for “all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.”

“[W]e hold ONS Medical Society is a covered person as a program planner that administered a vaccine clinic, and individually administered vaccines to individuals,” Judge Wood wrote.

“The declaration clearly provides that a program planner may be a private sector employer or community group when it carries out the ‘described activities’ including administration of a covered countermeasure.”

The same law also applied to the Guilford school board.

“We are convinced by the Secretary’s interpretation in the declaration that a covered person under the PREP Act includes a ‘state or local government . . . [that] provides a facility to administer or use a Covered Countermeasure’,” Wood wrote.

“We hold this language includes the Board, which provided a facility — Northwest Guilford High School — for the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.”

“Wisely or not, the plain language of the PREP Act includes claims of battery and violations of state constitutional rights within the scope of its immunity, and it, therefore, shields Defendants from liability for Plaintiffs’ claims,” Wood added.

The Appeals Court noted that North Carolina’s General Assembly amended state law in 2021 to require “parental consent before a vaccine granted emergency use authorization may be administered to a minor.”

“Its intent is to prevent the egregious conduct alleged in the case before us, and to safeguard the constitutional rights at issue — Emily’s parental right to the care and control of her child, and Tanner’s right to individual liberty,” Wood wrote.

“Notwithstanding, the statute remains explicitly subject to ‘any other provision of law to the contrary’ under the broad provision preempting state law in the PREP Act.”

“The PREP Act provides only one exception for a ‘Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct.’

“Because Plaintiffs have not made any such allegations in their complaint, we are constrained to conclude the PREP Act preempts the protections provided” by state law, Wood added.

Judges Allegra Collins and Jeff Carpenter joined Wood’s decision.

READ MORE – Doctor U-Turns, Issues Public Apology for Pushing Covid Shots

SHARE:
Advertise with Slay News
join telegram

READERS' POLL

Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Subscribe
Notify of
8
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x