Maine’s Supreme Court has approved the force-vaccination of children without their parents’ consent or knowledge. The ruling upheld a lower court command that school medical staff cannot be held liable for giving a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without obtaining parental consent.

On March 4th, the court declared that school medical staff were protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). The PREP Act provides a liability shield to “covered persons.” Those include anyone who administers COVID-19 “vaccine” or other countermeasures during a public health emergency. COVID-19 vaccines are covered under the PREP Act because they were rolled out under emergency use authorization (EUA).

COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines

Not only are those who administer the vaccines to children without consent protected by the ruling class, those who create the “vaccines” are also covered.

Biden Extends COVID Vaccine Makers’ Liability Shield Through 2029

In November 2021, J.H., a minor, was given a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at Miller School in Waldoboro, Maine. In May 2023, J.H.’s parents Siara Harrington and Jeremiah Hogan sued Lincoln Medical Partners, MaineHealth and pediatrician Dr. Andrew Russ, because they did not consent to the vaccination.

In April 2024, the Maine Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the PREP Act granted immunity to the defendants. J.H.’s parents appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in August 2024, arguing that the PREP Act does not protect practitioners from liability in cases involving nonconsensual medical interventions. –Children’s Health Defense

F.R. Jenkins, an attorney for the plaintiffs, disagreed with the decision. “It is simply inconceivable that Congress intended to abolish the doctrine of consent to medical treatment for a whole class of claims when the doctrine is both firmly entrenched in common law precedent and tradition and the doctor-patient relationship and the consent underpinning it have always been the subject of state rather than federal regulation,” Jenkins said.

“There is no meaningful right to accept or refuse if one cannot bring an action for civil money damages to enforce the right,” Jenkins said. He added that the PREP Act was not meant to supersede informed consent.

Wayne Rohde, author of “The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” and “The Vaccine Court 2.0,” said the two rulings show that “our state and federal court system has no interest in supporting true informed consent.”

The Vaccine Court looks at the mysterious and often unknown world of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), the only recourse for seeking compensation for those who have been injured by a vaccine. The NVICP, better known as the ”Vaccine Court,” however, is not without controversy.

This is a disturbing ruling for body autonomy and parental rights. We are on a slippery slope of the ruling class being able to declare anything they want, with the law and force to back it up.