![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Screen-Shot-2020-12-29-at-11.59.13-AM.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Niamh Harris
\nNEWSPUNCH<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The\u00a0\u201cMinor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0B23-017, was passed last month.<\/p>\n The bill\u00a0permits<\/a>\u00a0children aged 11 years or older\u00a0\u201cto consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n \u201cIt also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Lifesitenews.com<\/a> reports: The bill not only permits children of this age to provide consent to doctors and other vaccine administrators without a parent\u2019s knowledge or consent, but also requires insurance companies, school administrators, and medical personnel to conceal from parents that their child has been vaccinated.<\/p>\n The legislation mandates (in lines 37\u201338) that \u201c[p]roviders who administer immunizations under the authority of this subsection shall seek reimbursement, without parental consent, directly from the insurer\u201d rather than involving a parent in this process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Secondly, it mandates that insurance companies are not to notify parents of such payouts in the standard way. \u201cInsurers shall not send an Explanation of Benefits (EOB) [to the child\u2019s parents] for services provided,\u201d the bill states (line 40).<\/p>\n More fundamentally, if this bill becomes law,\u00a0The Vaccine Reaction<\/em>\u00a0(V.R.) warns, \u201cit is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents\u2019 back.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n V.R. also demonstrates how B23-0171 violates the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA), which requires health care providers to supply parents or guardians with vaccine information from the CDC prior to administering the vaccine to their minor child.<\/p>\n The CDC itself\u00a0affirms<\/a>\u00a0this to be a legal requirement on its website. According to an \u201cFAQ\u201d question, \u201cIs there a requirement to verify that parents\/legal representatives have actually received and reviewed the VIS (Vaccine information Statement)?,\u201d the answer is \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n Obviously, V.R. argues, children are \u201cfar less likely than an adult parent to understand personal and family medical history, including vaccine reactions,\u201d nor do they \u201chave the same kind of critical thinking skills or emotional maturity required to make a well-informed vaccine benefit-risk decision compared to an adult.\u201d<\/p>\n In 1986, the U.S. Congress\u00a0passed the NCVIA, which, with its 1987 amendment, and a subsequent Supreme Court decision, effectively removed all legal and fiscal liability from vaccine-manufacturers, doctors, and other vaccine administrators when mandatory vaccines cause even permanent injury or death. Earlier this year, federal regulators explicitly\u00a0reinforced\u00a0the same policy for coronavirus vaccine\u2013makers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Some degree of liability is now covered by the U.S. taxpayers in the federally run Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, also created by the NCVIA. To date, this program has paid out approximately $4.4 billion, providing concrete evidence that vaccines can cause significant, even permanent injury and death.<\/p>\n If a child accepts a vaccination without parents\u2019 knowledge, and if he develops a serious reaction, parents may not recognize the symptoms as being potentially related to their child\u2019s vaccine and fail to seek appropriate medical care in a timely fashion. Such a situation could be life-threatening.<\/p>\n And considering the fact that vaccine-manufacturers are immune from all liability, V.R. affirms, \u201c[t]here is no justification for the state to eliminate a parent\u2019s legal and moral right to make an informed benefit and risk decision about vaccination on behalf of a minor child.\u201d<\/p>\n According to V.R., B23-0171 also violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in compelling schools to conceal the vaccine status of children from their parents. FERPA \u201cguarantees parents the right to have access to their children\u2019s education records. The definition of \u2018education records\u2019 include health and vaccine records at the K-12 level.\u201d<\/p>\n As parents have become more self-educated and less comfortable with their children being given different vaccinations, support for the circumventing of their natural rights, with minor consent legislation, has recently grown in the medical community. Last year,\u00a0The New England Journal of Medicine<\/em>\u00a0published\u00a0an opinion piece<\/a>\u00a0supporting the idea, and the American Medical Association\u00a0passed<\/a>\u00a0a resolution encouraging the ratification of state laws allowing minors to consent to vaccinations.<\/p>\n Due to this effort, 34 minor consent bills were introduced in state legislatures over the last two years. Having listened to parents, legislators have rejected a total of 33 of them, with the D.C. bill being the only one remaining in play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n