A group of parents backed by a non-governmental institution filed a lawsuit on July 12 against the District of Columbia (DC) over new legislation that authorizes officials to vaccinate children in public schools without parental consent, even if the parents have a religious objection.

The city legislation, known as the “Minors’ Consent to Vaccinations Act of 2020,” passed the Democratic-majority Council in a November vote and went into effect on March 19. 

The controversial regulation allows children 11 and older to consent to a vaccine, including the experimental COVID-19 virus vaccine, without parental consent.

Health insurance companies are also prohibited from sending parents a “Notice of Benefits” detailing the medical service received by their child. While children will have access to their vaccination records “without parental consent.”

In this context, four parents filed a lawsuit against DC on Monday, alleging that the District’s recently enacted law deprives parents’ constitutional rights and jeopardizes children’s safety by allowing children under 11 to be vaccinated without parental consent or knowledge.

The nonprofits Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Parental Rights Foundation represented the parents in the lawsuit filed in federal district court in DC.

“The D.C. Act is reckless, unconstitutional, and needlessly endangers children’s lives by stripping away parental protection and the protection of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,” said CHD president and general counsel Mary Holland.

The complaint at issue alleges that the Washington law deprives the plaintiffs of their constitutional right as parents to “direct the care and upbringing of their children” and the right to “freely exercise their religion.” At the same time, it grants this power to the state, regardless of the will of the children and parents.

The law requires the health care provider to send the immunization record directly to the child’s school, and the school must keep it “confidential,” even without the parents’ knowledge if the child so chooses.

This situation even exposes the child to high health risks since the parents will not be able to interpret possible adverse reactions to the vaccine in their children, running the risk of inappropriately medicating the child or ignoring possible serious reactions.

This type of legislation seems to be based on the initiative of the left, which intends to replace the traditional role of parents and the family with that of a government that makes decisions ranging from the most global to the most particular of the individual. 

In this same sense, an article recently published by the Journal of Medical Ethics states that governments should prevent any type of intervention by parents who oppose the hormonal and surgical transformation of their children.

The controversial article was written by author Maura Priest, a professor at Arizona State University, who warns that when parents reject the idea of their children undergoing a sex change, they should not be allowed to participate in “decisions regarding pediatric care associated with the transition,” regardless of whether the children are children or adolescent minors.

“Assuming the patient is informed and competent, only the patient (child) can make this assessment, because only the patient has access to the true weight of the benefits associated with transition,” Priest writes. 

However, there is little scientific or medical evidence on the purported benefits of treatments offered for this “psychological distress,” such as puberty-blocking hormones, surgery, and a wide variety of regulations.

Leftist politicians and some organizations and the complicity of the hegemonic media seem obsessed with attacking the traditional parent-child relationship, which is reflected in these types of regulations that seem to empower children but ultimately end up empowering government apparatuses.