Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) reintroduced HR 4668,

[M]

Source; https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-07-28-gosar-reintroduces-bill-endi...

'Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) reintroduced HR 4668, which aims to repeal legal protections shielding vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits, allowing injured individuals to sue directly in state or federal court.

Since 1986, vaccine makers have been largely immune from liability under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), requiring harmed individuals to seek compensation through the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) – a system criticized as slow and inefficient.

The bill arrives amid heightened concerns over vaccine safety, particularly regarding COVID-19 shots, and seeks to bypass the underperforming Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which has approved only 39 out of nearly 14,000 COVID-related claims.

Proponents argue ending immunity would hold manufacturers accountable and improve transparency, while opponents warn it could disrupt vaccine supply, citing fears from the 1980s about litigation driving companies out of production.

The bill has 28 cosponsors and bipartisan recognition of flaws in current compensation systems, but its prospects remain uncertain.

U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) has reintroduced a bill ending legal immunity for vaccine makers amid rising scrutiny regarding the safety of various injections.

For nearly 40 years, vaccine manufacturers in the U.S. have operated with an unusual legal safeguard: they are shielded from most lawsuits, even when their products cause harm. But Gosar, a former dentist, is now challenging that legal protection.

On July 22, the congressman for the Grand Canyon State reintroduced HR 4668 – a derivative of an earlier bill he authored. "Big Pharma should not be given a free pass for injuries caused by their dangerous vaccines," he declared.

During the previous congressional session, Gosar introduced the similar HR 9828, also known as the End the Vaccine Carveout Act. It aimed to remove that he calls an "unfair" liability carveout for the pharmaceutical industry, but this was stalled at the lower chamber. HR 9828 seeks to amend federal law to allow injured individuals to sue vaccine makers directly, a right stripped away in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). (Related: New bill dismantles vaccine liability shield, seeks justice for the injured.)

The push comes amid heightened scrutiny of vaccine safety, particularly following widespread Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations and reports of severe side effects from these injections. Under the NCVIA, those alleging harm from vaccines must first seek compensation through the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) – a no-fault system critics argue is slow, opaque, and rarely delivers adequate redress.

Since its inception, the VICP has paid approximately $5 billion across 25,000 claims. But Gosar contends the process is stacked against claimants. "Satisfying these requirements is practically an impossibility," his office stated, citing the high burden of proof required to succeed in a claim.

The bill would dismantle key provisions of both the NCVIA and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, which further expanded liability protections during public health emergencies. Gosar's legislation would retroactively allow claims dating back to VICP's 1988 launch and permit those injured by COVID-19 shots to bypass the beleaguered Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). That system has compensated just 39 out of 13,836 COVID-related claims filed as of June.

The debate over vaccine liability gained renewed attention last week during a Senate hearing on vaccine injuries, where even staunch pro-vaccine lawmakers like Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) acknowledged the need for reform. "The government has decided that this particular industry gets a free pass," remarked Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH).

Advocates agree, with Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland calling the NCVIA a "catastrophic error" that removed accountability from drug manufacturers. Critics, however, warn that rolling back protections could destabilize vaccine supply – a concern dating back to the 1980s when lawsuits threatened to shutter production. Defenders of the current system argue vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing and serious side effects are exceedingly rare.

Yet Gosar and supporters counter that forcing manufacturers to face litigation, as in other industries, would incentivize greater transparency and safety.'