Then I asked;
Is there a risk of involuntary vaccination, due the Maine Supreme Court ruling?
GROK said;
“ The Maine Supreme Court ruling referenced in your question—and widely discussed in posts on X and the Slay News article from March 5, 2025—does not explicitly authorize involuntary vaccination of children without parental consent as a broad policy. However, it has raised concerns about the potential for such risks due to its implications. Let’s break it down based on available information as of March 7, 2025.
The case in question, decided on March 4, 2025, by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, stemmed from a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by a father, Chad Brewer. His five-year-old daughter was vaccinated with Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccine at a school-based clinic in November 2021, allegedly without his knowledge or consent. Brewer had declined the vaccine on a school form, but the clinic, operated by Northern Light Health, vaccinated the child anyway, citing a clerical error and the child’s verbal assent. Brewer sued for negligence, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the court dismissed the case.
The ruling hinged on the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. This law provides immunity from liability for entities administering “covered countermeasures” (like COVID-19 vaccines) during a public health emergency, except in cases of “willful misconduct.” The Maine Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s finding that the PREP Act preempted Brewer’s state law claims, meaning the defendants (Northern Light Health and its staff) were shielded from the lawsuit. The court didn’t rule on the ethics or legality of vaccinating without consent but rather on the technical issue of legal immunity.
Does this create a risk of involuntary vaccination? Not directly, in the sense of establishing a new legal mandate allowing schools or clinics to vaccinate children without parental consent as a standard practice. The ruling doesn’t grant blanket permission for such actions—it addresses a specific incident and the liability protections in place. However, it highlights a potential vulnerability: if providers act (intentionally or by error) without consent, the PREP Act could shield them from accountability during a declared emergency, reducing deterrence against similar incidents. Critics, as reflected in X posts and the Slay News piece, interpret this as “green-lighting” forced vaccination because it leaves parents with little legal recourse after the fact.
Context matters here. Maine’s current laws don’t explicitly allow involuntary vaccination of minors without consent. The state dropped its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in 2023, and no standing policy mandates vaccines for schoolchildren without parental approval. Past cases, like the 2021 U.S. Supreme Court refusal to block Maine’s healthcare worker vaccine mandate (which lacked religious exemptions), show courts have upheld state authority in public health but haven’t extended this to minors without consent. The Brewer case is distinct—it’s about liability, not a new policy.
The risk, then, is indirect: the ruling could embolden providers to act without consent in emergencies, knowing they’re protected from lawsuits, especially if emergency declarations (like the federal COVID-19 one, which ended in May 2023 but could be reinstated) are active. Without the emergency declaration, the PREP Act’s protections wouldn’t apply, lowering this risk. Posts on X exaggerate the ruling as a broad authorization, but that’s not supported by the legal text—it’s more a gap in accountability than a directive.
So, is there a risk? Yes, in specific scenarios involving errors or overreach during a public health emergency, parents might face challenges holding providers accountable. But it’s not a statewide policy shift allowing forced vaccination as of now. For a clearer picture, tracking future emergency declarations and any legislative responses in Maine would be key. Do you want me to investigate further into Maine’s current vaccination laws or related cases?”
Slay news is trying triggering and misleading. Here is an AI summary from GROK:
“ To determine the credibility of the source you provided—Slay News, specifically the article at https://slaynews.com/news/court-green-light-force-vaccinate-children-without-parental-consent/—we need to evaluate several factors about the outlet and the content. As of March 7, 2025, here’s my analysis based on available information and general principles of source evaluation:
Slay News is not widely recognized as a mainstream or established journalistic outlet with a long track record of rigorous reporting. A quick look into its reputation suggests it leans toward sensationalism and may have a partisan slant, often publishing stories that align with specific ideological perspectives rather than adhering strictly to neutral, fact-based reporting. This doesn’t automatically discredit it, but it raises questions about its reliability compared to outlets with established editorial standards, like major newspapers or peer-reviewed journals.
The article in question, published on March 5, 2025, claims a state Supreme Court has ruled that children can be “force-vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge or consent,” citing a case involving a child vaccinated with Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccine at a school clinic in November 2021 without parental consent. The headline and framing are dramatic, suggesting a broad, sweeping legal precedent. However, without cross-referencing primary sources—like the actual court ruling or official statements—it’s hard to confirm the accuracy or context of this interpretation. Sensational headlines can sometimes exaggerate or misrepresent nuanced legal decisions.
I can use my tools to investigate further. Searching the web and posts on X for context, I find that similar claims have circulated about other court cases (e.g., Vermont’s Supreme Court ruling in 2024), but those were often clarified or debunked as not broadly authorizing forced vaccination without consent. For instance, the Vermont case involved a specific incident where a school was shielded from liability under the PREP Act, not a blanket approval for schools to vaccinate without consent. If the Slay News article refers to a new March 4, 2025, ruling, it would need verification from primary legal documents or reputable news outlets to confirm its scope and accuracy.
Posts on X about this specific URL are limited, but one from January 16, 2025, suggests skepticism about its credibility, noting it’s “not from a credible source” and that “one read should make that obvious.” This aligns with a critical approach: if the article relies on hyperbole or lacks citations to verifiable documents (e.g., court records), its credibility weakens.
For a definitive answer, I’d recommend checking primary sources—like the court’s ruling itself—or coverage from established outlets (e.g., AP, Reuters, or local news near the state in question). Slay News’s track record and the article’s tone suggest it’s not a highly credible source on its own. It might be highlighting a real event but could be distorting it for effect. Without seeing the ruling or corroborating reports, I’d treat it as questionable and advise caution. Do you want me to dig deeper into the specific case it references?”
Please don’t generalize. There are many federal civilian employees that are really enjoying this. So many years of being taken advantage of. So tired of the preferential treatment system. There are good people who aren’t worthy of such ridicule.
Knowing that the deep state will be lucky to exist in 30 days, Carviille is taking a desperate gamble by saying this. What allows him to do this, is that either way the scam is over. Once the kids see the puppeteer, suspension of disbelief is an unrealistic expectation.
Some globalists stuff is obvious. Most is not. How many globalists appointed since January?