Alert: No Routine COVID Shots for Kids

On October 20, 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will be meeting. One of the agenda items appears to be a vote to recommend adding COVID-19 shots to the immunization schedule for children. This is a dangerous idea that will only benefit the vaccine manufacturers at the expense of the best interests of kids and their parents.  Not only do the shots have essentially no meaningfully positive impact on children’s health, the fact that the risk of severe adverse events are greater than any potential small benefit is becoming increasingly evident. A decision by the CDC to make COVID-19 shots a routine childhood vaccination would not only ensure a steady revenue stream for manufacturers, but it would grant them continued liability protection once the public health emergency declaration ends.  In addition, many entities look to the CDC recommendations when they impose mandates, increasing the likelihood that a COVID shot could be required to attend school. 

The Lack of Legal Precedent for Modern Day U.S. Mandatory Vaccination Laws

No other country requires as many childhood vaccines as the U.S., but the legal edifice shoring up the compulsory childhood vaccine program is surprisingly flimsy. As New York University legal scholar Mary Holland explains in a 2010 working paper, this edifice relies primarily on two century-old Supreme Court decisions—from 1905 and 1922—and on the game-changing National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, which fundamentally altered the legal landscape for vaccination by exempting vaccine manufacturers and medical practitioners from liability for childhood vaccine injuries. The 1986 Act, in particular, resulted in an absence of legal protections for vaccinated children that is “striking compared to almost all other medical interventions.” Examining the legal trajectory of vaccine mandates since 1905, Holland argues that current childhood mandates are not only radically different from what the earlier courts and legislators envisioned but are “unreasonable and oppressive and have led to…perverse results” that do not safeguard children’s rights and health.