The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It's free.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Parental Rights Foundation on Monday filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a court order to declare the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Act) unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs in the suit 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 D.C. Act.
The D.C. Act allows children 11 years old 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 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 the fact that a child has been vaccinated against parental judgment, authority or religious convictions.
For example, the D.C. Act mandates, based on documents filed by parents, if a minor has a religious exemption from vaccines or has opted out of the HPV vaccine, the healthcare provider should leave those parts of the student’s immunization record “blank” (Sec. 3(b)(2)).
The D.C. Act also requires healthcare personnel 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.”
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 provided to parents.
This law now permits an 11-year-old to override his or her parents’ express written directive, and requires the child’s school to falsify and withhold vaccine records from the parents.
The D.C. Act has “dire implications” for the health of children, according to Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel.
“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, Holland explained.
“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,” Holland said.
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 on the premise that vaccine injury is “unavoidable.” It requires those injured seek compensation from a “fatally flawed” government compensation program, Holland said.
Federal court decisions have acknowledged some children will suffer “adverse events,” including brain damage, seizures, paralysis and death from childhood vaccines. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid more than $4.5 billion to date in compensation to families of those injured and killed by vaccines.
To minimize the number of injuries and to compensate those seriously injured, the Vaccine Act requires parents be 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 Statements, recording requirements and mandatory reporting of vaccine adverse events, according to Holland.
The Defender has covered the progression of the D.C. City Council bill for many months. The bill passed the D.C. Council on a 10-3 vote in November 2020, was signed into law by Mayor Muriel Bowser in December 2020 and took effect March 19, 2021.
Although the D.C. Act is the most blatant abuse of laws governing minor consent to vaccination, it is not isolated, according to Holland, who said 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. 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.’”