In a shocking blow to parental rights and informed consent, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that school medical staff cannot be held accountable for administering a COVID-19 vaccine to a child without parental permission. The decision, rooted in the controversial PREP Act, has sparked outrage among advocates for medical freedom and parental rights.

• The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court ruling, shielding school staff from liability under the PREP Act.

• A minor, J.H., was vaccinated at Miller School in Waldoboro, Maine, in November 2021 without parental consent.

• The court dismissed claims of battery, negligence, and emotional distress, citing immunity for “covered persons” under the PREP Act.

• Legal experts and advocates warn that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, eroding fundamental rights to informed consent and parental decision-making.

The erosion of parental rights in the public school system

In November 2021, J.H., a minor attending Miller School in Waldoboro, Maine, was administered a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine during a school clinic. His parents, Siara Harrington and Jeremiah Hogan, had explicitly chosen not to vaccinate their child and had not provided written or verbal consent. Despite this, the school’s medical staff proceeded with the injection, claiming protection under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).

The PREP Act, enacted in 2005, was designed to provide liability protection to individuals and entities involved in the administration of medical countermeasures during public health emergencies. However, critics argue that the law has been weaponized to bypass informed consent and parental rights, particularly in the context of COVID-19 vaccines.

J.H.’s parents filed a lawsuit in May 2023, alleging battery, negligence, false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with parental rights. The case was dismissed in April 2024 by the Maine Superior Court, which ruled that the PREP Act granted immunity to the defendants. The family appealed, but the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld the dismissal in March 2024, effectively greenlighting the violation of parental consent.

The Prep Act: a shield for medical tyranny

The PREP Act’s broad immunity provisions have come under fire for enabling what many describe as medical tyranny. Under the act, “covered persons” — including medical practitioners and institutions — are shielded from liability for administering “covered countermeasures,” such as COVID-19 vaccines, during a declared public health emergency. This immunity extends even to cases of battery and negligence, as long as the actions do not constitute “willful misconduct.”

F.R. Jenkins, an attorney representing J.H.’s family, condemned the court’s decision, stating, “There is no meaningful right to accept or refuse if one cannot bring an action for civil money damages to enforce the right.” He emphasized that the PREP Act was never intended to override the fundamental doctrine of informed consent, which is deeply rooted in common law and constitutional tradition.

Ray Flores, senior outside counsel to Children’s Health Defense (CHD), echoed these concerns, calling the ruling “unconscionable.” He noted that the Maine court relied on a similar case in Vermont, where a 6-year-old boy was vaccinated against his and his parents’ wishes. The Vermont Supreme Court also ruled in favor of PREP Act immunity, setting a troubling precedent for future cases.

A dangerous trend in judicial overreach

The Maine and Vermont rulings are part of a broader trend in which courts have prioritized public health mandates over individual rights. John Klar, an attorney involved in the Vermont case, warned that these decisions “perverted federal constitutional law” by subordinating parental rights to the government’s “compelling interest” in addressing public health emergencies.

Wayne Rohde, author of The Vaccine Court, criticized the judiciary for failing to uphold true informed consent. “Our state and federal court system has no interest in supporting true informed consent,” he said. “These rulings show that the system is rigged against parents and individuals who dare to challenge the status quo.”

The implications of these rulings are far-reaching. If medical practitioners can administer experimental drugs and vaccines without consent, what stops them from forcing other medical interventions on unwilling individuals? The erosion of informed consent threatens not only parental rights but also the very foundation of medical ethics.

Calls to dismantle the Prep Act

In December 2024, the Biden administration extended the PREP Act’s liability shield through 2029, marking the 12th extension since 2020. This move has further galvanized calls to dismantle the act and restore accountability in the medical system.

Rohde urged the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “sundown the PREP Act immediately” and provide guidance to courts on the importance of informed consent and parental rights. With Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a staunch advocate for medical freedom, now serving as HHS secretary, there is hope that the agency may take action to address these concerns.

Jenkins called on HHS to clarify that the PREP Act does not bar civil actions for failing to obtain consent. “It is time to take aggressive action to protect children … and the entire American public, from further PREP Act abuse,” he said.

A fight for the soul of medical ethics

The Maine ruling is a stark reminder of the ongoing battle for medical freedom and parental rights. It underscores the urgent need to challenge the PREP Act’s immunity provisions and hold accountable those who violate the sacred trust between patients, parents, and medical practitioners.

As the legal battles continue, the question remains: Will the courts uphold the fundamental rights of individuals and families, or will they continue to serve as enablers of medical tyranny? The answer will determine not only the future of informed consent but also the soul of our medical system.

In the words of Ron Jenkins, “Consent is meaningless if there is no meaningful recourse for failing to obtain it.” The fight for justice is far from over, and the stakes could not be higher.

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

Trialsitenews.com