Court Ruling in North Carolina Sets Precedent for Forced Vaccination of Children
A controversial case involving a 14-year-old boy sparks debate over parental rights and bodily autonomy in the face of public health emergencies.
In a controversial case in North Carolina, a Court of Appeals has set a precedent allowing for the forced vaccination of children under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
The ruling involved a 14-year-old boy, Tanner Smith, who was given a COVID-19 vaccine without his consent or that of his parents. Despite Smith's protests and the lack of parental consent, the court upheld the decision citing the broad protections of the PREP Act. This ruling has raised concerns about the violation of bodily autonomy, parental rights, and accountability in cases of forced vaccinations.
Smith, a student at Western Guilford High School in Greensboro, found himself unwittingly embroiled in a situation that has far-reaching implications. After being informed of potential exposure to COVID-19 at school, Smith was required to undergo testing before being allowed to return to football practice. A free vaccination clinic was held alongside the testing, leading to Smith being forced to take the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine against his wishes and without parental consent.
The crux of the matter lies in the court's ruling that the PREP Act supersedes state laws requiring written consent from parents or legal guardians for minors to receive vaccines with emergency use authorization.
Despite acknowledging the egregious nature of the incident and Tanner's suffering, the court upheld the decision, citing the broad immunity provided by the PREP Act to parties involved in administering countermeasures during public health emergencies.
This ruling has raised significant concerns among parents, healthcare providers, and legal experts alike. Critics argue that such a precedent could pave the way for further instances of forced vaccinations with little to no accountability for those responsible. The implications extend beyond Tanner Smith's case, highlighting a broader issue of balancing public health measures with individual rights and freedoms.
Amidst the ongoing discourse surrounding forced vaccinations, it is essential to consider the relatively low risk of severe COVID-19 complications for young individuals. Studies have shown that children and teenagers, particularly those without underlying health conditions, are at lower risk of experiencing severe illness or complications due to COVID-19.
However, a concerning factor that has emerged is the increased risk of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, among young males following mRNA vaccinations such as those for COVID-19. This potential severe side effect has raised concerns among parents, healthcare professionals, and policymakers, underscoring the need for careful consideration and informed decision-making when it comes to vaccinating youth populations in the context of public health emergencies.
Get holistic health support in the Wholistic Clinic.
The madness continues unfettered. At this point I'm skeptical enough to believe that covid-19 was released just to get mRNA vaccines in use without going through proper certification.
The article mentions "Tanner's suffering," but is that referring to his lack of consent or some unmentioned side effects? I couldn't find any info about that on my own, so I hope he is doing alright.
Cowardly judge.