California court strikes down COVID vaccine mandate for students

Slowly but surely, the reign of COVID tyranny and hysteria is coming to an end.

Last month, an appeals court in California, a state that had some of the strictest lockdowns and regulations in the nation, ruled that schools do not have the authority to impose COVID-19 vaccine mandates on their students.

The court noted that certain schools required students to be vaccinated to participate in sports or attend in-person classes. Although politicians have repeatedly urged us to “follow the science” when it comes to coronavirus prevention policies, the “science” behind mandating the vaccine for young adults is marginal at best.

According to California’s own data, 1,537,673 5- to 17-year-olds and 3,312,293 18- to 34-year-olds had COVID as of November 1, 2022. Combined, those groups make up more than 46 percent of all cases in the state but less than 2 percent of all deaths.

The point is: COVID-19 does not pose much of a threat to young people at all. And while the pros of giving kids the COVID vax are seemingly minimal, there are potential drawbacks.

The risk of developing myocarditis after being vaccinated, for example, while statistically low, is highest in 16- to 24-year-old males. Even the CDC admitted that “increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported in the United States after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.”

So let’s look at the data: the COVID vaccine does not prevent anyone from getting (or transmitting) the coronavirus, it only, in the words of the CDC, protects people from “getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying.” But young people are not at risk of “getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying” from COVID anyway. The vaccine does, however, come with the possible risk of life-threatening side effects for young, healthy people. What then is the rationale for mandating that students be vaccinated?

Why are young people being denied the ability to attend class in person, participate in sports, and join their classmates in other extracurricular activities as a consequence of their refusal to take an experimental drug?

While science is irrefutably an important component of this case, it is ultimately an issue of freedom. The court ruled against the mandates on the grounds of schools not having the authority to impose such measures on students.

"A century ago during a smallpox epidemic, the California Supreme Court held that the Legislature may require school children to be vaccinated against that disease. (Abeel v. Clark (1890) 84 Cal. 226, 230.),” the court said. “Since then, the Legislature has required students to be vaccinated for 10 diseases—but COVID-19 is not yet among them. The issue here is whether a school district may require students to be vaccinated for COVID-19 as a condition for both (1) attending in-person class, and (2) participating in extracurricular activities. The superior court determined there was a “statewide standard for school vaccination,” leaving “no room for each of the over 1,000 individual school districts to impose a patchwork of additional vaccine mandates.” On independent review, we reach the same conclusion and affirm the judgment.”

An attorney for Let Them Choose, an organization that advocates for letting parents decide whether or not a vaccine is the right choice for their kids, told the Los Angeles Times that the court’s ruling “is a great win for children and the rule of law and ensures consistency statewide.”

Although many continue to be disappointed by the results of last month’s election, this story serves as a reminder that the states – even states like California – are fighting back against tyranny, one step at a time.

To join the fight, sign the Convention of States petition below, and join your state’s COS team today!