Court Sets Precedent for Forced Mandatory COVID Vaccination of Children

A recent court case in North Carolina has set a precedent for the forced vaccination of school children with the experimental gene therapy Covid-19 shot.

The case involves Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith, who were involved in a lawsuit against Guilford County Schools and Old North State (ONS) Medical Society after Smith was jabbed with the vaccine without parental consent and against his objections.

The trial court initially dismissed the lawsuit based on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) of 2005, which provides broad immunity to parties involved in administering covered countermeasures during a public health emergency.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision and justified the PREP Act immunity using a declaration from the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent, as it means that no one will be held accountable for forcibly giving children vaccines under the guise of a health emergency. Happel and Smith are appealing the decision and hoping the North Carolina Supreme Court will intervene.

There has been a lack of media coverage and conservative attention to this case, with the ongoing tyranny of forced vaccination and the dangers of the Covid-19 shots largely unreported.

The PREP Act took effect in 2005, and it provides immunity from liability and lawsuits to parties carrying out ‘countermeasures’ recommended by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that are used in a declared public health emergency.

It also covers manufacturers and distributors of countermeasures such as vaccines.

In other words, it doesn’t matter at all that Smith did not want the vaccine and his parents did not consent to it; the PREP Act’s broad protections mean that they can do whatever they want.

As the court noted, “Wisely or not, the plain language of the PREP Act includes claims of battery and violations of state constitutional rights within the scope of its immunity, and it, therefore, shields Defendants from liability for Plaintiffs’ claims.”

This sets a dangerous precedent and means that no one will be held accountable for forcibly giving children vaccines under the guise of a health emergency.

Read more…


By Kate Stephenson
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x