CHD Lawsuit Seeks to Restore DC Law Allowing Children to Vaccinate Without Parental Knowledge or Consent • Protecting Children’s Health

The Children’s Health Defense and Parental Rights Foundation sued the mayor of the District of Columbia, the health department and school system, seeking a court order to declare the DC Minor Consent for Vaccination Amendment Act of 2020 unconstitutional.

Defender experienced censorship on many social channels. Be sure to keep in touch with news that matters subscribe to our top news of the day. It’s free.

Protecting the Health of Children (CHD) and Foundation of Parental Rights on Monday filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a court order declaring the DC Minor Consent for the Vaccine Amendment Act of 2020 (DC Act) unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are four parents of minor children attending public schools in the District of Columbia. They are seeking a preliminary order to ban the mayor, the DC Department of Health and the DC Public School System from enforcing the DC Act.

The DC Act allows children 11 years of age and older to consent to the administration of any vaccine – including COVID shots -recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), without parental knowledge or consent if the medical caregiver believes that the minor is competent on known criteria for consent. ”

The DC Act contains a number of provisions designed to deceive parents and hide the fact that a child has been vaccinated against parental judgment, authority or religious conviction.

For example, the DC Act mandates, subject to documents filed by parents, if a minor has a religious exemption from vaccines or chooses to HPV vaccine, the healthcare provider must leave parts of the student’s immunization record “blank”(Sec. 3 (b) (2)).

The DC Act also requires healthcare staff to provide accurate immunization records to the Department of Health and the student’s school, but not to parents.

It also contains subsections that allow healthcare staff to “claim compensation, without parental consent, directly from the insurer,” stating that “insurers will not send a Statement of Benefits for services provided. “

Health providers who vaccinate children against parental directives will be paid by the parental health insurance company for undocumented paid services provided by the parents.

This law now allows an 11-year-old to override his or her parent’s explicit written directive, and orders the child’s school to slap and withhold vaccination records from parents.

The DC Act has “serious implications” for children’s health, according to Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel.

Holland said:

If parents don’t know their child has been vaccinated at school, they may not recognize it. adverse vaccine reactions. Severe adverse reactions require immediate treatment and contraindications to further vaccination. Also, if the family doctor does not know that the child has been vaccinated at school, additional vaccines may be given more closely on time than those given at school. ”

Vaccine makers, the American Academy of Pediatrics and government public health authorities have published strict warnings about the time of vaccination. Children are often unaware of their family medical history and any natural contraindications to the vaccine, Holland explained.

“The DC Act is unconstitutional, unconstitutional and poses no risk of endangering the lives of children by taking away parental protection and the protection of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,” Holland said.

Congress was held the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Practice”) in response to increasing lawsuits alleging neurological and other injuries from vaccine injuries.

The Vaccine Act and the next decision of the Supreme Court, Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth, vaccine manufacturers shield from almost every responsibility thinking that vaccine harm is “inevitable.” Injured people are required to seek compensation from a “deficient illness” government compensation program, Holland said.

Federal court decisions recognize that some children will suffer “adverse events,” including brain damage, baldness, paralysis and death from childhood vaccines. The National Vaccine Injury Comprehensive Program pays more than $ 4.5 billion to date as compensation to the families of those injured and killed by the vaccines.

To reduce the number of INJURIES and to compensate for the seriously injured, the Vaccination Code requires parents to provide Vaccine Information Statements, vaccine records and directions for reporting vaccine adverse events to the federal Vaccine Reporting System (VAERS).

Ordered by the federal Statements of P Vaccine damage designed to provide parents with the minimum amount of information necessary to meet known consent requirements. These statements provide critical information on how to identify adverse events of the vaccine, including allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, attacks and PARALYSIS, and explain that some children do not need to be vaccinated.

The DC Act does not completely override federal laws to protect children, including the requirements to provide Vaccine P harm Statements, recording requirements and mandatory reporting of adverse vaccine events, according to Holland.

The Protector buried the progress on the DC City Council bill for several months. The bill, passed by the DC Council by a 10-3 vote in November 2020, was signed into law by Mayor Muriel Bowser in December 2020 and enacted on March 19, 2021.

Even if the DC Act is the most perceived abuse of laws governing small vaccination permits, it is not isolated, according to Holland, which states that other state and local governments are evading the rights of parents and endangered children under “the mature little doctrine. ”

Holland added:

“The DC Act is an incalculable intrusion on the rights and freedoms of parents and children. The Supreme Court did, ‘The interest in liberty issued in this case-the interest of parents in the care, protection and restraint of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental interests in liberty recognized in it of the Court. ‘ ”

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *