Numerous mainstream media outlets are misleading American parents about the law concerning Covid-19 vaccines. A Vermont Supreme Court ruling stated that a six-year-old boy was vaccinated against his parents' explicit instructions, but the court found that the family could only pursue a federal claim that requires proof of severe harm or death. Other claims related to parental rights and informed consent were completely dismissed. However, many media reports claim the opposite, spreading misinformation.
The Associated Press published a misleading piece titled "Fact Focus: Vermont ruling does not say schools can vaccinate children without parental consent. " The actual ruling confirmed that state law claims against immunized defendants cannot proceed due to federal law immunity. A law professor incorrectly supported this with the claim that the ruling only confirmed that federal law preempts state lawsuits. This mischaracterization is inaccurate, as the court ruled that even specific allegations of willful vaccination are preempted by federal law.
In this court case, the Vermont Supreme Court determined that all state tort claims related to the vaccine administration were barred, regardless of intent. This includes claims of battery and emotional distress. Media outlets such as USA Today echoed similar false narratives, claiming that the ruling does not allow schools to "force-vaccinate. " However, the reality is that the ruling provides no distinction between accidental and intentional vaccinations, leaving parents with no legal recourse.
Vermont Governor Phil Scott has provided cash rewards to schools based on vaccination rates, raising further concerns among parents about potential pressures to vaccinate students. The comments made by school officials regarding vaccination rates were deemed irrelevant by the court, as they were protected under the federal PREP Act. Even disparaging statements toward parents or children didn't affect the court's decision due to the immunity granted under this federal law.
In a further misleading claim, USA Today reiterated that the court's ruling only addressed civil liability in the case of mistaken vaccinations, presenting it inaccurately as though the incident was definitively unintentional. The dismissive claim undermines the parents' argument that the vaccination could have been conducted deliberately; they were denied the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
The ruling also completely bars claims of battery related to vaccines, whether or not there was intent to harm. Instead of providing clear definitions, the court’s conclusion leaves parents with fewer rights if vaccinations are administered against their wishes. This means Vermont parents could face significant legal barriers if their child is vaccinated without their consent.
Despite the media's portrayal, the ruling affects the legal rights of parents severely. Claims that traditionally would allow rehabilitation for intentional actions, such as a child being vaccinated against parental wishes, no longer stand, limiting parents' ability to seek justice. The media's portrayal of the Vermont case has been heavily criticized for misrepresenting its implications and misinforming the public about their rights.
The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that an individual family could not sue their child’s school after a vaccination error during a school clinic. The court claimed state law claims were preempted by the federal PREP Act. Plaintiffs could have only pursued administrative claims under the PREP Act or federal suits for willful misconduct, which they did not do.
Despite the complexities of the situation, some legal commentators have misrepresented the ruling as simple and clear, ignoring the significant implications for parental rights. If the Vermont ruling stands, parents may be unable to sue in cases where their children are vaccinated without consent unless there’s clear severe harm. This reality poses a profound concern for parental rights and child safety in the context of school vaccinations.
As schools administer vaccines under the protection of the PREP Act, the decision creates an unsettling environment for parents. If a child can be vaccinated against parental wishes without legal consequences, this raises questions about trust in public schools and the accountability of journalists who mislead the public about these critical issues.
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-medias-deception-of-parents/
Comments
Post a Comment