>>22098610 lb

>https://wjactv.com/news/nation-world/school-cant-be-sued-after-child-received-covid-vax-against-parents-wishes-court-rules-vermont-windham-southeast-school-district-pfizer-vaccination-covid-19-pandemic-health-crisis-in-the-classroom#

"Clinic workers gave L.P. one dose of the Pfizer vaccine after the child was mistakenly given a name tag reading the name of another student, according to the ruling. The second student had allegedly already received a vaccination earlier that day."

So, you can't claim immunity if you were the one who put the wrong name tag of the child who was acknowledged by the school was NOT supposed to receive the vaccine. Who switched the name tag? If it was the kid wanting to do what her friends were doing… potentially tougher case, depending on the age/ability to know consequences.

Also - here is the scariest part:

"The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday state and school officials involved in the matter are protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which provides liability immunity. In the event of a public health emergency, the PREP Act ensures certain "covered persons" are immune from claims causally related to the use of a "covered countermeasure."A vaccine is considered a covered countermeasure."

Powers That Be Play the Long Game. This VACCINE IS A PROTECTED COUNTER MEASURE" language (and similar clauses) are what we have to ROOT OUT of every law, federal and state.

This language WOULD arguably allow forced vaccines.

__

As an aside, even though the state supreme court reached for that emergency powers language to find the immunity they apparently wanted to grant the injectors and company, '''that isnotwhat happened, despite the inflammatory language, in the school case above. The school actually acknowledged the father's prohibition against vaccinating his child with the COVID shot. But someone "accidentally" switched her name tag, apparently with someone who had parental permission, and who already had a shot that day. So:

=WHO switched the name tags? ?????

=WHO failed to notice that the kid whose name was on the name tag already had a shot? ??????

=Would they have given the kid in the name tag a SECOND shot if she got in line with the same name tag? ??????

=Surely there were checks and balances that were ignored. Immunity does not cover willful blindness.

>>22100767

Anon should have lead with this:

Powers That Be Play the Long Game. This "VACCINE IS A PROTECTED COUNTER MEASURE" language (and similar clauses) in "emergency powers" laws are what we have to ROOT OUT of every law on the federal and state levels. This language is what an evil (or misguided, well-intentioned) someone could arguably use to justify forced vaccines.

The Constitutional arguments that should defeat this language would come after the fact - after the damage was done (after vaccines were force-injected).

So, if we can find so-called cases in controversy (or otherwise find a way to get a ruling on the merits in a court) - to eventually get to the Supreme Court and make it the law of the land - it needs to be done NOW.

AND the Legislators in States and in Congress should root out all similar language without going to court - amend it out! That would be much more cost-efficient and much more certain than chasing and awaiting varied court's opinions.

In this humble Anon's opinion.

>>22100812

>>22100767 (You)

>Equal protection under the law. No immunity.

Anon agrees that certain Constituonal arguments should eventually prevail to find the forced vaccine "emergency power" legislative authority unconstitutional. But that would be after the damage was done and after the court cases wind their way - over multiple years - to the Supreme Court, if they can make it there (no guarantees / lots of discretion in what gets picked up to be heard by the Supremes - they cant possibly hear every Writ/appeal that's filed, even if they wanted to).