Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on telegram
Share on whatsapp

CHD Files New Lawsuit to Stop D.C. Law Allowing 11-Year-Old Kids to Get Vaccines Without Parents’ Consent

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on telegram
Share on email
Share on print

Children’s Health Defense (CDH) and Parental Rights Foundation on Monday refiled a lawsuit on behalf of four parents challenging the D.C. Minor Consent Act as unconstitutional.

The D.C. Minor Consent Act allows children 11 or older to “consent” to vaccinations, including the Pfizer Bio-NTech COVID-19 vaccine, without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

The law contains multiple provisions designed to deceive parents and conceal the fact that children have been vaccinated, including against the parents’ written religious exemption.

The plaintiffs originally filed on July 12 in an attempt to stop the law from being enforced before school began. The case was dismissed without prejudice — meaning plaintiffs had the right to re-file — after a Sept. 2 hearing, during which the court questioned the issue of standing. That issue was resolved.

The D.C. Minor Consent Act specifically targets the children of parents who submitted religious exemptions. The law states in part, “If a minor or student is utilizing a religious exemption for vaccination or is opting out of receiving the human papillomavirus vaccine … the healthcare provider shall leave blank, part 3 of the immunization record, and submit the record directly to the minor student’s school.”

The law goes on to state: “The school shall keep the immunization record received from the healthcare provider confidential; except, that the school may share the record with the Department of Health or the school-based health center.”

The law also contains subsections authorizing healthcare personnel to “seek reimbursement, without parental consent, directly from the insurer,” but “insurers shall not send an Explanation of Benefits for services provided” to the parents.

The purpose of prohibiting documentation of paid-for services is to ensure parents do not find out their children were vaccinated against their parents’ directives.

“The D.C. law is dangerous not only in that it subverts the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children, but it also strips away the meager protections of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (NVIC) Act of 1986,” said Rolf Hazlehurst, a CHD senior staff attorney.

“With one sentence in the NVIC, which the three Justices of the Supreme Court described as ‘confusing,’ ‘ambiguous,’ and ‘sloppy drafting,’ Congress took away the right to trial by jury for vaccine injury and replaced it with the Vaccine Act.,” Hazlehurst said.

As a result of the NVIC and the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable for defective or unreasonably dangerous products, Hazlehurst explained.

A citizen’s primary rights under the NVIC include the recording requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-25, the right to Vaccine Information Statements in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-26, and the right to claim compensation for injury.

According to the lawsuit filed Monday, the D.C. Minor Consent Act directly conflicts with 42 USC § 300aa-25 and 42 USC § 300aa-26 and greatly undermines a vaccine-injured child’s ability to receive compensation under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Table.

The Minor Consent Act violates 42 USC § 300aa-26 by mandating healthcare providers provide “age-appropriate alternative vaccine information statements.”

By denying parents the minimum information Congress mandated under the NVIC, the D.C. law infringes on the rights of parents and children, undermines their ability to receive compensation under the NVIC and recklessly places children at risk of serious injury or death, the lawsuit alleges.

Since school reopened, many of the plaintiff’s predictions have come to pass, Hazlehurst said. “D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has implemented a ‘carrot-and-stick approach’ to encourage children to defy their parents and ‘consent’ to vaccinations.”

Hazlehurst said the defendants in the lawsuit launched a mass media campaign to “get vaccinated!” and children are offered “incentives” to “get vaccinated” including gift cards, earbuds, Ipads and chances to win other prizes. The defendants advertise walk-in clinics on a daily basis.

“The children of D.C. live in a culture of fear,” Hazlehurst said. “Unvaccinated children are singled out by strict contact tracing rules, in which the unvaccinated children are excluded from attending school if they come within 6 feet of anyone who later tests positive with ever-increasing contact tracing through saliva and nasal swabs.”

On Nov. 2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended Pfizer’s pediatric COVID vaccine for children ages 5 to 11.

“If the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccination Act is not stopped, it will lay the groundwork for a nationwide campaign for laws to vaccinate children regardless of objections by parents,” Hazlehurst said.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x

Get in Touch!

Purpose of your Contact
Where can i reach you?
What would you like to discuss?

Are you intending to visit the Lorphic marketing agency?