On March 18, the US District Court in Washington, DC took a stand for parents’ rights in a preliminary ruling that stated that a District of Columbia’s law violates both federal supremacy rules and the Free Exercise clause of the US Constitution. The 2020 DC law that was halted allowed 11-year-olds to consent to vaccination without parental consent or knowledge.

Parents Victor Booth and Joshua Mazer, their children, and other plaintiffs, sued DC’s mayor over the district’s 2020 law. 

Judge Trevor N. McFadden delivered an order that protects these families until the case can go to trial for a final ruling.  The order decided that two of the parents’ claims required the Judge to rule in their favor: first, that federal law preempts the District of Columbia’s 2020 law, and second that the DC statute violates constitutional religious freedom rights. Using one key factor in the rules for preliminary injunctions, the judge stated that the parents have, “shown a likelihood of success on the merits for those claims.”  

Vaccine Information Statements Required by Federal Law

Judge McFadden notes that both the federal government and the District of Columbia have laws regulating childhood vaccinations. Federally, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) was passed by the US Congress in 1986. That law has two key features: it grants pharmaceutical companies immunity from lawsuits for vaccine injury, and it creates the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) which has its own requirements. In order to help vaccine recipients be aware of vaccine risks and benefits and the existence of the NVICP, the US Congress mandated that the Health and Human Services department create “vaccine information statements” (VIS) to be given to vaccine recipients. This statement must include the benefits and risks of a given vaccine, notice of the existence of the NVICP, and “such other relevant information as may be determined by [HHS].” Each time a provider of a vaccine listed in the “Vaccine Injury Table” vaccinates a person, they must first give a VIS to the legal representative of any minor who is to be vaccinated. 

Washington, DC Minor Consent Act of 2020

For its part, the District of Columbia mandates certain vaccines for school children, including those who go to private or religious schools. The District laws allow exemptions for kids whose parents object to a vaccine based on religious belief and for those whose doctor believes the vaccine is “medically inadvisable.” In 2020 the District passed the controversial Minor Consent for Vaccinations Act Amendment of 2020 (MCA). This law allowed minors 11 or older to consent to a vaccine without parental consent or knowledge if; said minor is capable of informed consent, the vaccine is one recommended by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the vaccine “will be provided in accordance with [the Committee’s] recommended immunization schedule.” Under the MCA, a child can consent, “if the minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks ordinarily inherent in the medical care.” 

Religious and Medical Exemptions Receive Disparate Treatment

The MCA mandates that the D.C. Department of Health produce age-appropriate versions of the relevant vaccine information sheet which explains both the risks and benefits of a given vaccine. This law advises providers to request reimbursement “directly from the insurer” and without parental consent. They are also to tell the insurer that the vaccine was given under the MCA. And insurance companies are not allowed to send parents any benefits explanations for an MCA “service.” If a parent has previously filed a religious vaccine exemption for a child, the child can still consent. Providers are to leave blank a portion of the vaccine record, and Judge McFadden noted that this, “serves to obfuscate the child’s vaccination from his parents.” At the same time, the MCA does not require the same “blank” form for children whose folks have filed a medical exemption.  Mr. Booth asserts that since the MCA requires a “blank” entry in paperwork for folks with a religious exemption, it shows, “hostility to a religion or a religious viewpoint.”

“Pressure-Cooker Environment”

According to plaintiff Booth, D.C.’s law has led to a “pressure-cooker environment” wherein kids are enticed and manipulated to get vaccinated against their parents’ wishes. They allege that there is an “intense . . . vaccine marketing campaign” in favor of the COVID-19 vaccine. This includes, “billboards, posters, fliers, printed ads, online ads, websites with links, emails, Twitter, and other forms of mass media.” It also promises rewards, “such as gift cards, ear buds, and chances to win iPads, $25,000 scholarships, and other prizes.” Plaintiff Booth has a 13-year-old child, “L.B.,” who is medically fragile with autoimmunity, alopecia (hair loss), asthma, and eczema. And these conditions arose after prior vaccinations. 

MCA Encourages Kids to Deceive Their Parents

Mr. Booth shared that when he halted vaccinations of his child, L.B.’s hair started to grow back. Mr. Booth has now formed religious objections to both COVID-19 and other vaccines.  But L.B. now faces repercussions for being unvaccinated for COVID-19: he had to quarantine when vaccinated kids did not, and he is not allowed to play sports. L.B. loves baseball and he, “has become increasingly angry, agitated, and upset” over this loss. According to Mr. Booth, L.B. has told him, “If I were offered a vaccine, I would take it.” Notably, L.B.’s school has a vaccine clinic on-site. 

Booth and the other plaintiffs argue that the MCA puts duties on providers that contradict those imposed by the NCVIA. They assert because, “the MCA cuts parents out of the vaccination process, a parent will never receive the VIS.” In a key quote, McFadden notes, “the MCA encourages kids to deceive their parents. Once a child has gone behind her parents’ backs to get a vaccine, what is she supposed to do if she has a negative reaction? Some children might tell their parents; others very well might be afraid and try to hide their actions.” Parents who are in the dark about a vaccination would neither know to look out for adverse effects nor the fact that such a reaction might be due to a vaccine. 

Judge McFadden notes in his ruling that federal law demands that parents receive a VIS; and since the COVID-19 vaccine is not covered by NCVIA, the judge relied on the threat of other vaccines to L.B. McFadden states that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution requires that federal law, “shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Plaintiffs’ Lawyers at Children’s Health Defense Chime In

In a March 21 press release plaintiffs’ attorneys at Children’s Health Defense noted that: “Government overreach such as this has dire implications for childrens’ (sic) health and the constitutional rights of citizens.” They echo Judge McFadden’s concerns that the MCA law seems to target, “children whose parents have religious exemptions for their children. The D.C. Act contains several provisions designed to deceive parents and hide the fact that their children have been vaccinated against their parental judgment, authority or religious convictions.” They went on to state that, “This preliminary injunction is part of ongoing litigation in an extremely important national precedent-setting case—-The rights of parents to decide what is best for their children’s health is at stake. Government can’t be allowed to make such decisions for minor children.” They also noted that while the case is not finally decided, the preliminary injunction reverts D.C. to the standard age of consent of 18.