News
Featured Image

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 13, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) – On Monday, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and the Parental Rights Foundation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a court order to declare that the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are four parents of minor children who attend public school in the District of Columbia. They seek a preliminary injunction to prohibit the Mayor, the D.C. Department of Health, and the D.C. Public School System from enforcing the Act.

The D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Act) allows children eleven years of age and older to consent to the administration of any vaccine recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), including COVID shots, without parental knowledge or consent, if the medical provider believes “the minor is capable of meeting the informed consent standard.” 

The D.C. Act contains several provisions designed to deceive parents and hide that the child has been vaccinated against parental judgment, authority or religious convictions. The D.C. Act mandates that if a minor has a religious exemption from vaccines or has opted out of the HPV vaccine based on documents filed by parents, the health care provider should leave those parts of the student’s immunization record “blank.”(Sec. 3(b)(2)). To further deceive parents, the D.C. Act requires healthcare personnel to provide accurate immunization records to the Department of Health and to the student’s school, but not to parents. It also contains subsections authorizing healthcare personnel to “seek reimbursement, without parental consent, directly from the insurer,” noting that “insurers shall not send an Explanation of Benefits for services provided.”

This law now permits an eleven-year-old to override his or her parents’ express written directive, and the child’s school must falsify and withhold vaccine records from the parents to conceal the truth. The healthcare providers who vaccinate children against parental directives will be paid by the parents’ health insurance company with no documentation of paid-for services to parents.

The D.C. Act has dire implications for the health of children. If parents do not know their child was vaccinated at school, they may not recognize vaccine adverse reactions. Serious adverse reactions require immediate medical treatment and are contraindications to further vaccination. Also, if the family doctor is unaware the child was vaccinated at school, additional vaccines may be administered too close in time to those given at school. Vaccine manufacturers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and government public health authorities publish strict warnings about the timing of vaccines. Children are typically unaware of their family medical history and any inherent contraindications to vaccines. 

“The D.C. Act is reckless, unconstitutional, and needlessly endangers children’s lives by stripping away parental protection and the protection of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,” said CHD president and general counsel Mary Holland.

Congress enacted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act”) in response to a growing number of lawsuits alleging neurological and other damage from vaccine injuries. The Vaccine Act and the subsequent Supreme Court decision Bruesewitz v. Wyeth shield vaccine manufacturers from virtually all liability based upon the premise that vaccine injury is “unavoidable.” It requires those injured seek compensation from a fatally flawed government compensation program. Federal court decisions have acknowledged that some children will suffer “adverse events,” including brain damage, seizures, paralysis and death from childhood vaccines. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid over $ 4.5 billion to date in compensation to the families of those injured and killed by vaccines.

To minimize the number of injuries and to compensate those seriously injured, the Vaccine Act requires that parents are provided with Vaccine Information Statements, vaccine records, and directions for reporting vaccine adverse events to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). 

Federally mandated Vaccine Injury Statements are designed to provide parents with the minimum amount of information necessary to meet informed consent requirements. These statements provide critical information regarding how to recognize vaccine adverse events including allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, seizures and paralysis, and explain that some children should not be vaccinated. The D.C. Act completely disregards federal laws to protect children, including the requirements to provide Vaccine Injury Statementsrecording requirements and mandatory reporting of vaccine adverse events.

The Defender has been covering the progression of the D.C. City Council bill for many months. The bill passed the D.C. Council on a 10-3 vote last November, was signed into law by Mayor Muriel Bowser in December and went into effect on March 19, 2021. Although the D.C. Minor Consent Act is the most blatant abuse of laws governing minor consent to vaccination, it is not isolated. Other state and local governments are circumventing parental rights and endangering children under “the mature minor doctrine.”

“The D.C. Act is an unconscionable intrusion on the rights and liberty of parents and children,” said Holland. “As the Supreme Court held, ‘The liberty interest at issue in this case—the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.’” (Troxel v. Granville350 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).)

Reprinted with permission from Children’s Health Defense.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.