Recent Featured Videos and Articles | Eastern “Orthodoxy” Refuted | How To Avoid Sin | The Antichrist Identified! | What Fake Christians Get Wrong About Ephesians | Why So Many Can't Believe | “Magicians” Prove A Spiritual World Exists | Amazing Evidence For God | News Links |
Vatican II “Catholic” Church Exposed | Steps To Convert | Outside The Church There Is No Salvation | E-Exchanges | The Holy Rosary | Padre Pio | Traditional Catholic Issues And Groups | Help Save Souls: Donate |
"Court Rules Federal Prep Act Protects Forced Vaccination Without Parental Consent"
"A North Carolina Court of Appeals found that a clinic whose personnel gave a 14-year-old boy a COVID-19 shot without his or his parents’ consent was protected by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
The court unanimously ruled in March against Tanner Smith and his mother’s constitutional rights despite calling the act of forcing the child to get a COVID-19 jab against his will 'egregious.'
From The Vaccine Reaction:
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 and 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.
The incident began in 2021 after the Western Guilford High School in Greensboro, North Carolina sent a letter to Tanner’s parents claiming that unless he got tested for SARS-CoV-2, he would not be able to 'return to football practice until cleared by a public health professional.'
Winter Sun Plus is NOW 25% off! Boost your natural defenses with this powerful vitamin D3 and K formula!
The letter went on to say the school would be hosting a free clinic that offers COVID testing, adding that 'consent for testing is required.'
Then things took a turn for the worse.
The following day, Tanner’s step-father took him to the clinic at the local school for the free testing so that Tanner could return to football practice. The school district failed to inform the parents that a there was also a free vaccination clinic along with the free testing at the school that same day. While Tanner’s step-father waited in the car, Tanner filled out a form that he believed was for the free testing needed to return to football practice. At that time, one of the clinic workers attempted to reach out to Tanner’s mother but she was not available. Tanner’s step-father who was waiting outside the clinic was not called.
Tanner made it clear to the the clinic workers that he was there for a COVID-19 test and not for the COVID shot and 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 COVID shot.
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.
But the trial court dismissed their complaint in 2023 due to the PREP Act shielding the defendants.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision last month, claiming that although N.C. state law requires a healthcare provider to obtain written consent from a parent before administering any vaccine to a minor, the PREP Act 'preempts' state law.
'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,' the court 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, which began in 2005, states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may recommend the use of one or more countermeasures after declaring that a disease, health condition or threat to public health constitutes an emergency.
In that case, a healthcare provider covered by the countermeasures 'shall be immune from suit and liability.'
'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 Vaccine Reaction reported.
'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 court ruled.
Eight Republican state House members urged the North Carolina Supreme Court in a legal brief on Friday to take the case...
Emergency health decrees imposed by unelected bureaucrats should not trump constitutional rights and bodily autonomy in a free country."
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.
Recent Content
^