Rolf Hazlehurst, senior staff attorney with Children’s Health Defense (CHD), on Monday appeared on the “Mornings With Nick Reed” radio show to discuss CHD’s lawsuit seeking to overturn the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020.
The law, passed earlier this year in the District of Columbia, allows children as young as 11 to be vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
Hazlehurst told host Kyle Wyatt how the D.C. law was designed specifically to deceive parents about their children’s vaccination status. He also discussed the issues associated with allowing an 11-year-old to make medical decisions.
According to Hazlehurst, the law states that a minor child 11 years of age or older may consent to receive a vaccine “if the minor is capable of meeting the informed consent standard and the vaccine is recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,” which operates under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“It’s absolutely absurd to put an 11-year old in that position,” Hazlehurst said. “A child that age can be easily coerced, and they don’t comprehend the risk involved.”
Hazlehurst explained that without knowing their child was vaccinated, parents can’t monitor the child for potentially dangerous vaccine reactions, such as an allergic reaction or seizures.
Hazlehurst has firsthand knowledge about vaccine injuries. About 20 years ago, after his son developed autism following a vaccine, Hazlehurst learned “the hard way” what it’s like to try to get compensation for a vaccine injury through the government-run Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
“What most people don’t realize, if you are injured, or your child is injured, the pharmaceutical company can’t be held liable. Your right to a judge, a jury, the rules of law … are all taken away. You’re put in a subclass of citizenship … where the only legal remedy is a special master, who is nothing more than a government-appointed attorney.”
The VICP was established after pharmaceutical companies were granted immunity under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
To understand the 1986 law, Hazlehurst said, “you have to go back to the early 1980s,” when there were multiple lawsuits against vaccine makers alleging the DTP vaccine had caused seizures, brain damage and death.
“Two things happened as a result of those lawsuits,” Hazlehurst said. The DTP vaccine was replaced with the presumed safer DTAP vaccine, and pharmaceutical companies lobbied for liability protection, he explained.
Hazlehurst said the fact that vaccine-injured children and their parents are rarely compensated under the VICP is all the more reason not to allow 11-year-olds to make their own decisions when it comes to vaccines.
Under the VICP, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services medical staff reviews the petition for compensation, determines if it meets the medical criteria for compensation and makes a preliminary recommendation.
Then the U.S. Department of Justice develops a report that includes the medical recommendation and legal analysis and submits it to the court.
“So you’re up against the full weight of the government,” Hazlehurst said.
As for his son’s case, it was one of six that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — where they lost.
Hazlehurst said the D.C. law is the first of its kind — but if it isn’t overturned, more will follow.
Pingback: CHD Attorney Rolf Hazlehurst: ‘Absolutely Absurd’ to Let 11-Year-Olds Make Vaccine Decisions | The Most Revolutionary Act – Additional survival tricks
They just keep throwing it at us ! This is totally a monstrously bad decision. Anyone with a brain would know enough not to do this. That is … anyone whose brain wasn’t infected with the idea of communism. Total loss of responsibility here. We are just ‘inching’ to some kind of pushback but it doesn’t seem we’re too successful. Biden is still in office with a severe mental disorder, as displayed on several public occasions. Yet no one is doing anything about that. They are tearing the Constitution and even the military, who took an oath to protect it, are not in the picture.
I think “inching” to some kind of pushback is the key message in your comment, Mary Anne. The forces of repression are so strong that we must make very careful what form the pushback takes for it to be sustained.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. Thank you. We need Arizona completed …
Further to an earlier conversation:
Stew Peters Show: BLOOD BANK DANGER!
By Stew Peters Show – Published July 26, 2021 Dr. Bryan Ardis exposes the dangers of accepting blood during surgery or in an emergency
Good link, Mary Anne. Thanks.