I was recently interviewed by Michael Nevradakis of Children’s Health Defense. Michael asked me some very tough questions (that I provided to him beforehand!) about the Vermont Supreme Court’s recent Politella decision, which held that Vermont parents of a six-year-old boy had no legal rights when their son was administered an experimental COVID-19 vaccine despite his mother and father specifically notifying the public school that they did not want him inoculated.
This case has implications for parents across the nation, as it construed the federal PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act as “preempting” or terminating longstanding rights of parental consent in favor of complete immunity for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Congress never expressed any intention to eclipse such vital rights in the plain language of the PREP Act.
As I explain in my interview with Michael, this terrible, tone-deaf decision by Vermont’s highest court adds public school hesitancy to vaccine hesitancy — more parents will now distrust Vermont public schools, who have no legal accountability when they breach basic obligations to the parents and children in their charge. This decision is unconscionable and offensive, and will likely be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where the Politellas will seek protection for their child from experimental vaccines, unaccountable school staff, and a toxic Vermont Supreme Court that was utterly callous to their experiences.
(The full interview is here.).
Vermont Lawyer Blasts Ruling That Let School Off the Hook for Vaccinating 6-Year-Old Against Parents’ Wishes • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)
