Social media platforms have been buzzing with claims about a recent ruling from the Vermont Supreme Court, suggesting that it permits schools to vaccinate children without parental consent. This assertion mischaracterizes the court’s decision, which revolved around a lawsuit initiated by Dario and Shujen Politella concerning the unapproved COVID-19 vaccination of their 6-year-old son.
The original complaint filed against the Windham Southeast School District and state officials was prompted by an incident in 2021 where their son, referred to as L.P., received a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at a school clinic despite his father’s prior instructions that he should not be vaccinated. The child was mistakenly vaccinated due to a mix-up involving identification labels, leading to the Politella’s seeking legal recourse. However, a lower court dismissed their complaint, and an appeal was sought from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Vermont’s Supreme Court ruling clarified that officials covered by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) are immune from state lawsuits; this does not equate to a permission slip for schools to administer vaccinations at their discretion. It is crucial to note that the court’s decision was not a green light for compulsory vaccinations against parental wishes. The ruling specifically addressed the immunity offered under the PREP Act, stating it protects officials from legal accountability for actions taken during a public health emergency, such as administering vaccines, barring “willful misconduct” that leads to severe injury or death.
According to the court, “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case, and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” emphasizing that all related state law claims are barred when a defendant is protected under this federal statute. The PREP Act, created in 2005, allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide immunity in response to public health emergencies, with one structured for COVID-19 declared in March 2020, and it is due to end on December 31.
Amid the misinformation circulating online, claims that the court has allowed schools to forcibly vaccinate minors against parental will have garnered significant traction. One social media post highlighted this purported ruling, garnering vast engagement. Despite the assertions, legal experts have clarified that the court’s decision solely related to the interpretation and application of the PREP Act.
Rod Smolla, a constitutional law expert, asserted that the ruling does not imply schools have the authority to administer vaccines against parent wishes. Ronald Ferrara, attorney for the Politellas, acknowledged that while the court didn’t explicitly grant schools the power to vaccinate without consent, the implications of the ruling could potentially be interpreted by school officials in that manner concerning COVID-19 vaccines. He expressed concerns over the underlying issues the ruling presented regarding parental rights in deciding elective medical treatment for their children.
John Klar, another attorney for the Politellas, took it further, suggesting the ruling could effectively mean that schools might evade legal repercussions for vaccinating minors without parental consent under the current interpretation of the law, leaving parents limited to pursuing federal claims only in instances of serious injury or death.
The discussion ignited by this ruling underscores a broader conversation about parental rights, medical consent, and the evolving landscape of public health policy within the context of ongoing debates about vaccinations and child welfare in educational settings.
