NC Supreme Court Allows Family to Sue School and Doctors over Unauthorized Son Vaccination
By The Blog Source
In a victory for individual liberty and parental rights, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith could bring a lawsuit against a school system and a medical organization for allegedly giving the kid a COVID-19 vaccination against his will.
The court's Republican majority ruled 5-2, overturning earlier rulings and piercing the government shield liberals used to evade accountability. The story started in August 2021 when Tanner, who was 14 at the time, visited a testing center at his high school in Guilford County following an epidemic involving a football team. Instead of the Pfizer shot, he preferred a COVID test.
As required by state law for emergency-use vaccines, he informed staff that he did not want it and that he did not have a parental consent document. According to the lawsuit, Tanner was jabbed against his will after a worker allegedly replied, "Give it to him anyway," when they were unable to get in touch with Happel.
Happel and Smith filed a lawsuit against the Old North State Medical Society, which operated the clinic, and the Guilford County Board of Education, alleging violence and infringement of respective state constitutions—his right to refuse coerced medical treatment and her right to direct her child's upbringing. Citing the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, the state Court of Appeals and a trial court had dismissed the complaint.
Schools and providers promoting "countermeasures" like immunizations are granted immunity under that 2005 statute, which was activated in 2020 by the COVID emergency. However, Chief Justice Paul Newby stated in his majority opinion that the PREP Act is not comprehensive. Its immunity does not extend to constitutional infractions originating from North Carolina's founding document, but only to tort allegations such as carelessness. Newby rejected the notion that state rights might be overridden by federal bureaucrats, writing, "A parent's right to control their child's care and a person's right to say no to nonmandatory shots are not up for grabs."
The decision was applauded by conservatives who opposed government overreach. State Senator Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell, stated on X that "this is about liberty, not liability shields for careless clinics." "When a child's mother says no, no one should force a shot on him." Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., has called for rescinding vaccination approvals, citing purported dangers that the left rejects; thus, the decision is in line with the rising skepticism of COVID policy.
Democratic Justice Allison Riggs wrote the dissent, complaining that the majority created a "loophole" that would hinder emergency responses. She made the standard liberal argument that the PREP Act's vast reach should take precedence over state claims, whether or not they are lawful. Happel and Smith still need to prove their case, so this is not the final outcome. However, Friday's decision presents an opportunity for Happel and Smith to challenge the system's purported disregard for a mother's authority and a teen's refusal. This is a weakness in the PREP Act, indicating that permission is still important in emergency situations. Conservatives see a larger battle ahead as the case returns to trial: containing the nanny state, one forced shot at a time.
To join the Diamond and Silk Monthly Supporter Program, visit http://SupportDiamondandSilk.com.
Lindell TV, VOCL, ChatDit, Rumble, TruthSocial, and Diamond and Silk Media are all excellent ways to stay connected with Diamond and Silk.
