Vermont Supreme Court Rules Against Parental Consent for Vaccinations

Case Overview

The Supreme Court of Vermont has made a ruling that citizens cannot legally challenge the administration of an experimental vaccine to their children by public school personnel unless they can demonstrate willful misconduct and that their child has suffered serious physical injury or death. This shocking disregard for parental consent was rationalized by reference to federal laws governing vaccinations, disregarding both federal and state constitutional freedoms.

The plaintiffs in the case of Politella v. Windham Southeast School District et al. are parents of a 6-year-old student in a Vermont public school. The child was given a Covid-19 vaccine approved under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. This act protects those involved from any legal liability for their actions, unless they intentionally cause death or serious injury. Thankfully, the child did not experience any negative effects from the vaccine. The family took the matter to state court under various state causes of action; however, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the PREP Act prevented their complaint.

Federal Preemption and its Role

This decision is guided by the United States Constitution. The ‘Supremacy Clause” (Art. VI, Clause 2) states that federal laws are ‘the supreme Law of the Land.’ Any state laws that conflict with federal laws are 'superseded' or 'preempted' by the 'supremacy' of national laws. This is a key aspect of federalism, which also respects the legal independence of states in areas not specifically regulated by Congress.

Federal Preemption can be either expressed, as when federal law contains explicit preemptive language; or implied by courts as implicit in the law’s structure and purpose. Implied preemption includes a legal subcategory called ‘conflict preemption,’ which includes ‘obstacle preemption’ (when the state law poses an obstacle to the achievement of Congress’ objectives), and ‘impossibility preemption,’ which occurs when simultaneous compliance with both federal and state law regulations is impossible.

The Court's Reasoning

The Vermont Court’s reasoning follows similar lines: allowing state claims for vaccines could require schools to adhere to higher public safety standards than “willful misconduct leading to death or serious bodily injury” (impossibility preemption). Such claims would also provide legal recourse against Big Pharma that Congress sought to prevent – obstacle preemption. The Court reasoned firmly: “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law” – even if the shot administered was experimental.

It is doubtful that Congress intended to extinguish parental consent for their children’s vaccines in the PREP Act, much like the unintended shield that federal cigarette labeling laws designed to protect public health ended up providing to unethical tobacco companies. The Vermont Supreme Court’s interpretation will fuel not just greater vaccine hesitancy but public school hesitancy – parents have no legal rights over experimental shots unless school officials willfully inflict death or serious physical injury.

Implications and Criticisms

The Vermont Supreme Court showed no remorse for their decision or even toward the parents and family. This Court showed no concern over potential government ineptitude, vaccine efficacy, adverse reactions, or effects in a young population not at significant risk from Covid-19. No mention of Constitutional rights either state or federal, to privacy, informed consent, due process, or anything else. This is hardly comforting to parents about to send their kids to school under ominous pathogenic clouds of Monkeypox and Bird flu, though doubtless comforting to Big Pharma.

There are two major flaws in the Vermont Supreme Court’s Politella decision: the United States Constitution is THE highest law of the land – even above federal statutes; and, implied federal preemption is to be used sparingly, not to ‘liberally’ extinguish long-standing parental rights and public trust.

Bottom Line

The Vermont Supreme Court's decision in the Politella case is a troubling precedent, completely disregarding any individual rights of citizens in favor of absolute totalitarian authority by the federal government. It raises important questions about the balance of power between federal and state laws, and the extent to which parental consent can be overridden. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you agree with the court's decision, or do you believe it oversteps its bounds? Share this article with your friends and let us know your thoughts. Remember, you can sign up for the Daily Briefing which is everyday at 6pm.