Sunday, May 19, 2024

GET OUR FREE E-NEWSLETTER

“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

— William Wilberforce

Search

NC Court Rules Federal PREP Act Protects Forced Vaccination Without Parental Consent

vaccinating a young girl

A North Carolina Court of Appeals found that a clinic, where personnel gave  a 14-year-old boy a COVID-19 shot without his consent or parental consent, was protected by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).  The court concluded that the Guilford Board of Education, which hosted the clinic, was also covered by the PREP Act.1

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.2

The minor child, Tanner Smith, attended Western Guilford High School in Greensboro, North Carolina when the school district sent a letter to his parents stating that Tanner was one of the students who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and that, unless he got tested, he would not be able to “return to football practice until cleared by a public health professional.” The letter set forth that one of the local schools would be hosting a free clinic offering testing the following day. The letter explained that, “consent for testing is required.”3 4

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.5

 Clinic Workers Said “Give It to Him Anyway”

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.6

Trial and Appellate Courts Rule PREP Act Pre-Empts State Law

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 plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights.7 The trial court dismissed the complaint due to the PREP Act shielding the defendants and the decision was appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. While North Carolina state law provides that “a health care provider shall obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering any vaccine that has been granted emergency use authorization and is not yet fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to an individual under 18 years of age,” the court found that the PREP Act pre-empts state law.

The court acknowledged that the intent of the state law is to protect bodily autonomy and parental rights and that the violation suffered by the plaintiffs when Tanner was given the shot against his wishes was outrageous, but ultimately concluded that the state statute was preempted by the federal PREP Act.

The court wrote:

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.” 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.8

The PREP Act Grants Immunity to “Covered Persons”

The PREP Act, which went into effect in 2005, states that when the Secretary of Health and Human Services declares that a disease, health condition or threat to public health or threat of same constitutes an emergency, the Secretary may recommend the use of one or more countermeasures.

The PREP Act provides:

Subject to the other provisions of this section, a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure.9

The PREP Act Extends to Allowing Forced Vaccination

The court pointed out that this immunity extends to “any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.” The PREP Act also has a broad provision preempting state law that provides that no state law may be in effect that conflicts with the PREP Act.10

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.”11

The court concluded that the Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty shot given to Tanner was considered a covered countermeasure. The court held that ONS Medical Society was considered a “covered persons” under the PREP Act as a program planner and community group that administered a vaccine clinic and provided vaccines to patients. The court further found that the school board was granted immunity under the PREP Act as it was a “state or local government…[that] provides a facility to administer or use a Covered Countermeasure.”12

The court wrote:

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.13

The Appellate Court held that the injury to Tanner, vaccination against his wishes and without his parents’ consent, is considered under the PREP Act because the PREP Act is extremely broad, providing immunity for “all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.”

The PREP Act defines “Loss” as any type of loss. The court explained:

Wisely or not, the plain language of the PREP Act includes claims of battery and violations of state constitutional rights within the scope of its immunity, and it therefore shields Defendants from liability for Plaintiffs’ claims.14


If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view References:

28 Responses

  1. I am appalled. Our government has been bought by the pharmaceutical companies.

    That greedy business owners can have the LEGAL “RIGHT” to batter and force their toxins onto A CHILD, NO LESS!!!

    I guess the judiciary that made these outrageous decisions don’t have family members who are super-vulnerable to these “legal” TOXINS.

    As an uninformed (and uninformable) friend—an intelligent friend!— said to me when the harms of the Covid vaccinations started being reported, “one in a million!” WAKE UP.

  2. This is outrageous. What has our country come to? I am disheartened that not only our individual rights are being violated but that those violating them and causing injury in so many cases are not held accountable. Very Sad!

  3. All I can say is I am glad that none of my grandchildren live in NC. This is totally an attack on parental as well as human rights and autonomy over one’s own body and should be treated as such imo.

  4. so, is the Prep act constitutional? How can a law give away our constitutional rights? That requires an amendment and nobody is doing that. This law from 2005 gives the Secretary of Health enormous power to choose an “emergency” at any time. Allowing unproven chemical injections with no accountability.
    “give it to him anyway” should be criminal

  5. In another interesting court development, in Germany, a 33-year-old woman presumably injured by Astra Zeneca’s covid vaccine involving a life-threatening intestinal blood clot has had some initial success in court ordered discovery in her lawsuit. I stumbled upon the news here : dailysabah (dot) com/business/german-woman-gets-initial-win-against-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-trial/news

  6. This is outrageous. Was he going to die if he didn’t get the shot? Getting tested for a virus and getting a shot are two different things. And his 4th amendment right is totally disregarded due to this weak emergency act that is mandated?

  7. Good god, that is just terrible. Where is rfk Jr or del Bigtree in this. What a bunch of xdgfsght ffhgs. How frustrating for this mom. Trying to call her & then doing it anyways. I can just see that evil nurse with horns & flames bhaha give it to him anyways. That should have voided the prep act right there. Ugh I feel so bad for this mom. Disgusting!

  8. How about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Does the PREP Act preempt that? These judges know nothing about the law.

    1. defined “covered persons” as including, “manufacturers, distributors, program planners, and qualified persons, and their officials, agents, and employees, and the UNITED STATES.” Please read the last two words of ‘covered persons’ There’s the answer to your uestion.

    2. defined “covered persons” as including, “manufacturers, distributors, program planners, and qualified persons, and their officials, agents, and employees, and the UNITED STATES.” Please read the last two words of ‘covered persons’ There’s the answer to your question. !!!!!!!!

  9. This is outrageous! There must be some way of repealing the Prep Act so courts cannot use this egregious excuse again! No one should be forced to accept an injection or oral administration of a drug, especially one that is experimental! This law is turning all of us into guinea pigs without our consent!

  10. Now there is a Federal Law that overides the consent of the governed and their unalienable rights??? The PREP Act is an unconscionable seizure of a person’s God given liberty.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

  11. OUTRIGHT EVIL …………………………………… MADE LEGAL………. BY MANIAC ELITES……………………… NEEDS TO BE STOOD UP AGAINST BY ALL THE PEOPLE!!! People, Realize that these Bastards are Evil, they Actually Want Us Dead, and They make Ludicrous “Prep Act” Bullshit to Cover Their Asses!!! We the People Need to be As Jesus Himself Said….. Matthew 10:16 ” Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: So Therefore Be as Wise and Shrewd as snakes….. But as Harmless as Doves.” What Jesus is Telling us is To Recognize their Evil Ways, as well as Their Evil Tactics, and ALWAYS BE ONE STEP IN FRONT of these Evil Bastards!!! That Step Dad in the story above….. Should have Escorted his son Inside of that Clinic, and Watched the Whole thing so as to See them try something as Devious as trying to forcibly give his son a shot, and at that point We As Parents Need To Say…………… OK, This is Over and We are Done!!!!!! See Ya!!!!!

  12. Please get the mother and father to write an adjudication to rectify this issue and override the court decision. The parents and the child are not subject to any corporate rule, including governmental corporate rule.
    Government is functioning as a corporation and there is no immunity given for. The man on land and soil is not subject to government but government is subject to the man on land and soil.
    Assumed contracts by government are null and void as they are unconscionable, without full disclosure.
    Please see articles and documentation on annavonreitz.com which includes search functions for further help.
    A letter of adjudication will override any court decision as the courts are only corporate courts (in commercial jurisdiction) and they have no subject matter jurisdiction in this case.
    A “Living Testimony of an affidavit of truth and obligation” can be written by the parents against the responsible party, stating the all the facts of this issue point by point (a plain statement of facts) with demand for full compensation for the damage incurred.

  13. More and more, the courts are nothing but criminals doing what the lefty government criminals want. No truth, no law, no integrity, no honesty. Only more lefty B.S. Oh yeah, is there any other kind? No.

  14. Now we need to teach medical self defense. I don’t know what he could have done, walk, run, shout, scream, kick .
    Do we need a body guard when getting a medical test?

  15. You folks can gripe all you want, and to no effect. The only thing that will put an end to this tyranny is a bunch of carefully thought-out lawsuits.

    This would be a good case for the Pacific Legal Foundation.

    1. Dear Brian, are you NOT paying attention? They cannot sue. Congress granted immunity to vaccine makers and vaccine injectors.

  16. Jan 24, 2024 Hang on! Bill Gates just said WHAT about vaccines? Are you kidding?

    Bill Gates and The British Medical Journal want “behavior interventions” to reduce vaccine hesitancy. They don’t promise better research or honest answers to earnest questions about vaccines. No, they want to modify OUR behavior so that we don’t ask questions. But…we still have questions.

    https://youtu.be/_Ls4AbEh5Yg?si=oQ3epSy3BvIG3u85

  17. Raise the child to be obedient? And where is the part of the story about “the Step-father who broke some kneecaps”? I would have gone ballistic.

  18. Dispose of the prep act.!
    Bad dangerous idea.!
    We want reasonable people responding during a emergency.
    not irresponsible non liable corporate actions profit exploiting a disaster.

  19. This family needs to file a complaint with the NC Board of Nursing against any RN involved……

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search in Archive