New bill seeks to strip vaccine manufacturers of liability protections

By bellecarter // 2025-07-29

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

The End the Vaccine Carveout Act was introduced in Congress on July 23 by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), aiming to remove liability protections for vaccine manufacturers and potentially expose them to numerous lawsuits over alleged injuries.
The bill seeks to amend the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which currently shields manufacturers from most vaccine injury lawsuits. This act was originally enacted to ensure a stable vaccine supply by limiting manufacturers' liability.
The proposed legislation would allow individuals to bypass the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and file civil suits directly against manufacturers in state or federal court. This change would eliminate the current requirement for claimants to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.
Supporters argue that the bill will increase accountability by allowing injured individuals to seek legal justice and compensation. Opponents, including industry analysts, warn that it could lead to increased litigation costs, potential disruptions in vaccine production and reduced public health outcomes.
The bill's introduction comes amid scrutiny of public confidence in vaccines, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic.

A new bill introduced in Congress aims to remove liability protections for vaccine manufacturers, potentially opening them up to a flood of lawsuits over alleged injuries. H.R. 4668, known as the End the Vaccine Carveout Act, was introduced on July 23 by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ). The bill seeks to amend the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which currently shields manufacturers from most lawsuits related to vaccine injuries. The legislation was enacted to ensure a stable vaccine supply by limiting manufacturers' liability. Under this law, individuals who believe they have been injured by a vaccine must first file a petition with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This program, however, has faced criticism for its lengthy backlog, with judgments often taking years to be rendered. The new bill would allow individuals to bypass the VICP and file civil suits directly against manufacturers in state or federal court. This change could significantly alter the legal landscape, as it would remove the current requirement for claimants to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. Gosar argues that the existing liability protections unfairly shield pharmaceutical companies from accountability. "Current immunity provisions unfairly shielding Big Pharma from the harms caused by their products prevent those injured by vaccines from pursuing a civil lawsuit," Gosar stated on July 24. He emphasized that the bill would "put patients over profits" by allowing injured individuals to seek legal justice and compensation. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was a response to a crisis in the 1980s when several lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce vaccination rates. The legislation was designed to balance the need for vaccine safety with the necessity of maintaining a robust vaccine supply. The act established the VICP, a no-fault alternative to traditional tort litigation, to provide compensation to individuals injured by certain vaccines. The program has paid out billions of dollars in compensation since its inception, but critics argue that it is not sufficiently accessible or timely. The introduction of H.R. 4668 comes at a time when public confidence in vaccines is under scrutiny, particularly in the wake of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Advocates for the bill argue that it will increase transparency and accountability, ultimately leading to safer vaccines. Opponents, however, warn that it could have unintended consequences, such as increased litigation costs and potential disruptions in vaccine production. (Related: Kennedy removes entire CDC vaccine panel in dramatic shake-up.)

Support and Opposition

Support for the bill has come from various advocacy groups, including the nonprofit Children's Health Defense. Mary Holland, the organization's president, expressed strong support for the legislation, stating that it would ensure vaccines are held to the highest standards of safety and effectiveness. "This is exactly what we need to ensure that vaccines are as safe as possible," Holland said in a statement. On the other hand, the pharmaceutical industry has remained largely silent on the matter. PhRMA, a trade group representing vaccine manufacturers, did not respond to a request for comment. However, industry analysts suggest that manufacturers are likely concerned about the potential impact on their businesses. Historically, the pharmaceutical industry has argued that liability protections are essential to encourage innovation and investment in vaccine development. They contend that without these protections, manufacturers might be less inclined to produce vaccines, which could lead to shortages and reduced public health outcomes. The End the Vaccine Carveout Act represents a significant shift in the approach to vaccine liability. If passed, it could have far-reaching implications for both the pharmaceutical industry and public health. While proponents argue that it will enhance accountability and safety, opponents warn of potential disruptions to vaccine supply and increased litigation. Watch the video below that talks about how childhood vaccines have not gone through safety trials. This video is from The People Of The Qur'an (TPQ) channel on Brighteon.com.

CITIZENS NEWS

Support and Opposition

More related stories:

Sources include: