District of Columbia vs. Parents of minor children

“Hey, Cody, how was your day?” Mom asks as she turns around from the sink where she’s peeling potatoes for supper. She smiles at Cody, her 13-year-old, but then notices his stiff posture. “Are you okay?”

Cody fixes a smile onto his face and nods. “Sure. Great.” He swings his backpack off his back onto the floor near the door and winces. Too late, he fixes the smile back on his face and straightens up. “Everything’s great, Mom,” he says forcefully, before racing out of the kitchen and up to his room.

Cody’s Mom frowns. Slowly she sets down the potato she’s still holding and wipes her hands, thinking hard. Then, making up her mind, she exits the kitchen and heads up the stairs. Outside Cody’s room she pauses, listening intently. There’s nothing to be heard. In a quick motion, she flings open the door – and there’s Cody, massaging his shoulder, a grimace on his face. 

He looks up in horror as his Mom stares at him, transfixed. “Uh, Mom, it’s really nothing. I just got hit during hockey practice. It’s not a big deal.”

“Let me see that ‘not a big deal,’” Cody’s Mom demands. 

Cody’s eyes brim with tears as his Mom gently lifts his sleeve and stares at the puffy, red skin, the piece of sticking plaster over the puncture hole. He tries to speak and gives up.

“Cody,” his Mom says finally. “Look me in the eye and tell me why… what… how did this happen? You knew…”

He knew – yes, he knew how hard it had been to get that religious exemption. He knew how relieved they’d all been when it was finally approved. But only he knew how his friends had teased him, calling him a sissy, a cry-baby, a scaredy-cat… His Mom didn’t know how the teacher looked at him when he told her about the exemption. She didn’t know what his science teacher said about people who didn’t believe in science belonging in the Dark Ages. And, she didn’t know how easy it had been, now that the law had changed, to go to the secretary’s office and tell her that he did want the shot after all, and please, don’t tell my Mom or Dad…

On February 4, 2022, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed an amicus brief in federal district court in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the District of Columbia’s Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020. This new law authorizes vaccinating children as young as 11 without their parents’ consent and keeping the procedure entirely hidden from them.

The lawsuit was filed back in July, 2021, by the Children’s Health Defense Fund and the Parental Rights Foundation, alleging that the Amendment Act is unconstitutional and demanding a temporary injunction until the case goes to trial by jury. The suit was originally “dismissed without prejudice” with the court inferring that the case had legal merit, and it was refiled. 

What exactly does the Amendment Act say?

The Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 comes “to amend … District of Columbia Municipal Regulations to permit a minor, 11 years of age or older, to receive a vaccine, if the minor is capable of meeting the informed consent standard and the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices…”

It also obligates the Department of Health to produce “age-appropriate alternative vaccine information sheets” and to ensure informed consent, which, according to this Act, means that the minor is “able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks ordinarily inherent in the medical care.” [Does this include understanding what mRNA is, and how it works – even though many pediatricians might well fail on this count?]

It also allows a minor access to his immunization records, and not only enables but requires physicians and insurers to bypass parents and work together with the minor’s school to proceed with the vaccination. Schools are told they must “keep the immunization record … confidential,” although they “may share the record with the Department of Health.”

Furthermore, even in the case where a parent has not only refused to give assent to vaccination but has actually gone as far as procuring a religious exemption for the child, the minor can still be vaccinated against the expressed written will of the parent, and the procedure kept secret from the parent. In order to achieve this, providers are to seek reimbursement directly from the insurer, which is ordered to refrain from sending an Explanation of Benefits for services provided.

Briefs in favor of the Minor Consent Act have been filed by Democracy Forward, a non-profit legal organization, on behalf of the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and several other organizations.

The AMA, in an article explaining its support of the Amendment, describes it as “protecting minors’ access to medical care such as COVID-19 vaccination and other routine immunizations recommended by the CDC … such as those for tetanus and pertussis.” It does not explain why its concern for minors’ access to medical care was only aroused in 2021. 

“The standard of care for physicians is to involve parents in medical decisions for their minor children,” they continue. “But, occasionally, parental involvement is impossible, impractical or even harmful.”

Furthermore, they allege, “Minors may also have reason to believe a parent would punish them for wanting to get vaccinated or for seeking other medical treatment like mental health services. When such situations arise … minors should be able to access potentially life-saving care.” According to the AAPS, the intention here may be not only to open a door to underhand COVID vaccination but also to irreversible transgender treatment and/or surgery, under the convenient umbrella of “mental health services.”

“Physicians are well able to assess whether a minor is sufficiently mature to understand and give consent,” the AMA further claims, quoting its President, Gerald E. Harmon, MD. 

In its amicus brief, the AAPS refers to the Supreme Court’s recent stay of the OSHA mandate and the point made by the Court that vaccination “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.”

The AAPS also notes that, “The total number of deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccines is more than double the number of deaths associated with all other vaccines combined since the year 1990.”

The AMA, by contrast, made no reference to the potential dangers of vaccination in its brief. In its writings, it admits that myocarditis can result, but claims that the risk following vaccination is dwarfed by the risk following infection, and stresses that in those cases where myocarditis was “linked to vaccination,” everyone made a full recovery. Proving a definite link, however, is extremely difficult to do. 

The AMA also appeals to people’s altruism in stressing the importance of getting vaccinated in order to protect others who can’t be, such as the very young. It makes no reference, however, to the many studies and real-world evidence that show that COVID “vaccination” does not prevent transmission.

The AMA’s stated mission is to “promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.”

The motto of the AAPS is “Omnia pro aegroto,” which means “all for the patient.”