People on social media are spreading false information about a Vermont Supreme Court decision, saying that it permits schools to vaccinate children even in cases where their parents refuse to consent.
The decision dealt with a complaint that Dario and Shujen Politella filed against the Windham Southeast School District and state officials in 2021 after their kid, then 6 years old, received an incorrect COVID-19 immunization. Both the initial complaint and its revised form had been dismissed by a lower court.On November 19, an appeal was submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.
However, the Vermont high court’s decision is not as comprehensive as some internet users have suggested. In actuality, it came to the conclusion that state litigation cannot be brought against anyone who is covered by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act.
Let’s examine the facts in more detail.
The Supreme Court of Vermont determined that schools had the right to vaccinate children against their parents’ desires.
THE FACTS: The assertion is based on a July 26 decision by the Vermont Supreme Court, which determined that the officials mentioned in the Politella lawsuit and anybody else covered by the PREP Act are exempt from state lawsuits. The decision does not give schools the right to vaccinate students as they see fit.
The lawsuit claims that despite his father, Dario, telling the assistant principal of Academy School in Brattleboro a few days prior that his son was not to receive a vaccination, Politella’s son, L.P., received one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at the school. L.P. was taken out of class and had a handwritten label with the name and birthdate of another kid, L.K., who had already had the vaccination that day placed on his shirt in what officials called an error. Then L.P. received a vaccination.
The Vermont Supreme Court ultimately decided that the case’s leaders could not be sued.
According to the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision, “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case, and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case.” We come to the conclusion that, once a defendant is immunized by the federal PREP Act, the PREP Act automatically precludes any state-law claims against that defendant.
The PREP Act, passed by Congress in 2005, gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to declare a public health emergency and exempt actions involving medical countermeasures, like administering a vaccine, from liability, unless there is deliberate misconduct that causes death or serious bodily harm. On March 17, 2020, an anti-COVID-19 proclamation was released. The expiration date is December 31. Washington is where federal lawsuits alleging deliberate misbehavior are filed.
The Vermont Supreme Court’s decision has ramifications that go beyond what it states, according to social media users.
According to one X post that had received about 16,600 likes and shares as of Tuesday, the Vermont Supreme Court has decided that schools have the right to compel children to receive the COVID vaccine against their parents’ desires. A 6-year-old youngster who was made to receive a Covid mRNA injection by his school was the subject of a high court ruling. His family had, however, made it clear that they did not want their youngster to get the vaccinations.
According to some users, the decision permits schools to administer any vaccine—not only the COVID-19 vaccine—to youngsters without parental authorization.
The decision simply maintains that the federal statute in question, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in situations where officials inadvertently administer a vaccination without consent, according to Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and a constitutional law expert, who spoke to The Associated Press.
He noted in an email that the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling does not allow school administrators to vaccinate a kid against the will of the parent.
Ronald Ferrara, an attorney for the Politellas, told the AP that while the ruling does not state that schools can vaccinate students without parental consent, officials may interpret it to mean that they could get away with it under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. Ferrara was asked if the claims making the rounds online have any merit. He clarified that the appeal from the U.S. Supreme Court aims to determine whether the Vermont Supreme Court went beyond what Congress intended when it construed the PREP Act.
In an email to the AP, he said that representatives of the State and the school had violated the Politellas’ fundamental right to choose whether or not their son should get elective medical treatment. In order to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery, the Vermont Court misinterprets the PREP Act immunity, which is contingent upon informed permission for medical procedures that are not FDA-approved.
Ferrara went on to say that although he was unaware of the allegations making the rounds online, he could see how laypeople may mistakenly believe that the court’s erroneous immunity for wrongdoing equates to endorsing such wrongdoing.
Visit https://apnews.com/APFactCheck to find AP Fact Checks.
The Associated Press, 2024. All rights reserved. All rights reserved. It is prohibited to publish, broadcast, rewrite, or redistribute this content without authorization.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!