During COVID, some school administrators vaccinated children without parental consent.

Teenager Says No to COVID Shot; Gets it Anyway

Tanner Smith received the COVID-19 vaccine at age 14 despite his protests and no parental consent. The Associated Press reports:

“In August 2021, [Tanner Smith received the COVID-19 vaccination] at a clinic at a Guilford County high school, according to the family’s lawsuit. Smith went to the clinic to be tested for COVID-19 after a cluster of cases occurred among his school’s football team. He did not expect the clinic would be providing vaccines as well, according to the litigation. Smith told workers he didn’t want a vaccination, and he lacked a signed parental consent form to get one. When the clinic was unable to reach his mother, a worker instructed another to ‘give it to him anyway,’ Happel and Smith allege in legal briefs.”.

Smith’s family sued and the North Carolina Supreme Court  ruled in their favor, stating that PREP Act immunity does not apply and that the family experienced “battery and violation” of their State Constitutional Rights.

The power of North Carolina’s decision lies in their definition of injury. Whereas previous cases were ruled tort (personal injury) violations, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled this a violation of the North Carolina Constitution, which falls under the Fourteenth Amendment Right to due process and guarantees bodily autonomy. This State-specific Constitutionally favorable ruling has now set a precedent:

“The PREP Act’s plain text leads us to conclude that its immunity only covers tort injuries. Because tort injuries are not constitutional violations, the PREP Act does not bar plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.” North Carolina Supreme Court.

In stark contrast to North Carolina’s ruling, however, Maine’s and Vermont’s Supreme Courts ruled in favor of blanket immunity, holding the PREP Act applicable in all cases, even if it over-rides State Constitutional Rights and ventures into the territory of “willful misconduct.”

The PREP Act: Blanket Immunity Except Willful Misconduct

The PREP Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act was enacted in 2005 to provide liability immunity for individuals and organizations involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of medical countermeasures during a declared public health emergency. It grants immunity from lawsuits (except in cases of willful misconduct) to those involved with “covered countermeasures” — such as vaccines, medications, and devices — and authorizes the HHS Secretary to issue a PREP Act Declaration, which activates these protections.

“One would think that injecting a boy over his objections and without the consent of his parents, would indeed qualify as willful misconduct, forcing the Defendant to pay damages under the PREP Act,” states Free Now Foundation Chairman Alix Mayer. “But this case goes further, and alleges State Constitutional violations.”

PREP Act vs. State Rights: Maine, Vermont, and North Carolina

Similar situations in both Maine and Vermont were not favorable to medical freedom. The Maine Court, like the Vermont Supremes, construed the PREP Act to federally “preempt” even state battery claims, (Brownstone Institute.) Those courts ruled that everything is immune under the PREP Act, and nobody anticipated blanket immunity for their Constitutional Rights,” explains Attorney and Board Member Jessica Barsotti, “whereas the legal reasoning North Carolina used is more sound and nuanced, taking into account a lack of due process and the violation of a boy’s right to bodily autonomy.”

Board Member, Pediatrician and Attorney Dr. Fox adds, “This decision is even more nuanced that it appears because the North Carolina Supreme Court considered it, not under the U.S. Constitution, but under the North Carolina Constitution. Thus, the decision holds that the PREP act does not provide immunity to violations of constitutional rights under the North Carolina Constitution.”

“This sets up the really important holding by the North Carolina Supreme Court, that the PREP Act does not preempt the North Carolina Constitution,” continues Dr. Fox. “That starts at page 29 under the heading of “Immunization of Unconstitutional Conduct.”

Here in California, courts are not required to follow either ruling. With two different state-level decisions at play, judges now have a framework to reference — which is often what they do. For either decision to become binding nationwide, the case would need to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Fox concludes:

“While the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to hold that the PREP Act does not bar the involuntary injection of a COVID vaccine into a minor without parental consent under the U.S. Constitution, in my view, such an injection without parental consent is a violation of the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

 “A long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that the right of parents to control the “care of custody” of their children may not be infringed by the government unless there is a compelling need to do so, such as a medical emergency, which there was not in this case.”

“No act of Congress, such as  the PREP Act, can strip us of our Constitutional rights. The principle that parents’ rights to control the “care and custody” of their children when it comes to vaccinations as opposed to the power of the state to require them is a central issue in Free Now Foundation’s federal lawsuit seeking to end California’s requirement for children to have vaccinations in order to attend school.”