The erosion of individual rights continues. A North Carolina Court of Appeals has backed efforts that allow for the forced “vaccination” of children without parental consent and over the objections of the child in question.
In August of 2021, Tanner Smith was a Western Guilford HS football player. A “cluster” of COVID cases involving the team led to the school offering free COVID testing to all players. Smith and his parents were told he would not be allowed to practice until the test was administered.
Smith’s stepfather drove him to the testing site. The stepfather stayed outside as Tanner entered the testing site.
There was a vaccination clinic going on at the same time unbeknownst to Tanner Smith and his family. A flyer promoting the vaccination clinic said, “Students age 12-17 must have their parent or guardian sign the consent form and bring the completed form to the vaccination site.” This was not done.
While the testing was going on, the workers attempted to contact the mother. Failing to do so, one worker instructed another to “give it to him anyway.” Giving it to him was the administration of the mRNA poison that masqueraded as a vaccine. This was done over the objections of Tanner himself who told the workers that he was just there to be tested.
The family sued everybody involved. After a trial judge dismissed the suit, the family appealed to the Court of Appeals.
While acknowledging the egregious conduct involved, the court ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) protected all actors in this action. This included the school, the school board, the clinic and its workers and the company that made the vaccine (in this case Pfizer).
The PREP Act provides:
Subject to the other provisions of this section, a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure.
Frank Bergman reported:
The Appellate Court held that the injury to Tanner, vaccination against his wishes and without his parents’ consent, is considered under the PREP Act because the PREP Act is extremely broad, providing immunity for “all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.”
And herein lies the problem. The laws that allow for broad “emergency” actions provide the means to substantially undermine individual rights as demonstrated in this case. These laws give sociopaths the ability to control populations through edicts.
Justices Thomas and Alito have railed against such laws. They have asserted multiple times that the Constitution does not disappear just because an “emergency” exists.
The constitutionality of the PREP Act needs to be challenged as well as other emergency laws that provide broad unchecked power to those who govern us.