‘Threatens every child in America’: Boy forced to get COVID shot against parents’ wishes, now court agrees with it

A state court ruling regarding a forced COVID treatment on a young child at his school is being denounced as something that “threatens every child in America.”

The comment is from John Klar, a lawyer, pastor and writer who has written at the Federalist about the case involving the 6-year-old Vermont boy.

He was “vaccinated with an experimental COVID-19 intervention against the family’s wishes, and now the Vermont Supreme Court has endorsed the actions by the state actors,” he reported.

“The Vermont court had ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) prohibits such claims, granting immunity to school and government personnel when they mandate vaccinations,” he explained, as the case now is being forwarded to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Stunningly, the Vermont Supreme Court did not even pay lip service to the constitutional liberties implicated, ruling against traditional protections of parental rights and informed consent. But the PREP Act is not above the Constitution’s supremacy clause; it’s the other way around,” Klar explained.

He said it’s part of a move to erase parental rights.

“In Vermont, minor children may obtain transgender hormones and birth control without parental consent, and a 2024 law bars parents from seeing which library books are checked out by their children 12 years and older. Yet these are examples where the child wants something against his parents’ wishes. In Vermont’s COVID-19 vaccination case, the child protested and was forced to be jabbed anyway,” he said.

Klar, representing the family in the case, explained, “Tony and Shujen Politella and their son Leo were shocked that their clear expressions of opposition to Leo being vaccinated were ignored.”

“Tony had visited his son’s school with the express purpose of ensuring his child would not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, offering to keep Leo home on the day of an upcoming clinic. He was assured Leo would be fine … .”

But the school’s scheming took over, and, Klar charged, “Leo was given an arm tag displaying another boy’s name and vaccinated despite his vocal protests.”

Then the school refused to explain “how such a gross error occurred.”

Leo now is at a different school, Klar explained.

Then the bureaucracy inflicted a further injury “when the Vermont attorney general and Vermont court system employed laws designed to grant product liability immunity to Big Pharma to instead insulate incompetent government employees from accountability for their wrongs.”

He said the threat now is that other courts “may rely” on its implied preemption by the government of family rights.

He explained, “Congress never intended for the PREP Act to abolish fundamental medical ethics or the legal rights of patients and parents. The PREP Act does not shield public servants from accountability for actions that have nothing to do with vaccine safety or efficacy. The Politellas did not sue a vaccine manufacturer for a harmful product; they sued school officials who inflicted very real harm.”

His warning is that those suspicious of various shots now could extend that distrust to schools “and courts that favor negligent or ill-willed works over the rights, and health, of young children.”

COVID shots, in fact, now have been linked to a wide range of serious and sometimes fatal side effects, especially in young people. And federal officials have admitted they likely didn’t prevent someone from getting COVID.