Weekly Wrap: Pray For the Religious Exemption
By Dan Olmsted
A couple of recent court cases have me convinced that the religious exemption from childhood immunizations is in big trouble.
The first case is one I somehow missed when it was decided last month. It’s a bit convoluted, but the gist is that three New York parents said their unvaccinated children were denied their rights by being kept out of school because another child had a vaccine-preventable disease. The judge said no.
To tell you the truth, I am not terribly concerned about that. Most parents I know who forego vaccines say that a better solution to disease control is informal quarantine – keep your kid home when they’re sick, or if you don’t want them to catch a disease they’re not vaccinated against.
But the scary part – especially in a state with no philosophical exemption and a nasty habit of trying to make parents prove the sincerity of their religious convictions -- was this comment in the federal judge’s ruling. “The Supreme Court,” he wrote, has “strongly suggested that religious objectors are not constitutionally exempt from vaccinations.”
I couldn’t find a link to the judge’s ruling, but according to the Times, he was pointing to Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which in 1905 (!) found that if Mr. Jacobson wanted to skip being vaccinated during a smallpox epidemic, he had to pay a $5 fine. More broadly, “Jacobson” has been cited as proof that the state’s police powers trump personal choice when it comes to a battle over vaccine mandates.
I don’t see it. He objected, he said, because both he and one of his children had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations. And all he had to do was pay five measly bucks, which even accounting for inflation is not much. How that undercuts religion as a basis for declining vaccination – especially absent a raging, deadly epidemic – is beyond me.
But just as I was digesting this, along came this week’s Hobby Lobby ruling from the Supreme Court itself, which said closely held companies whose owners are opposed to contraception don’t have to pay for insurance coverage. Regardless of what one thinks of that ruling, logic dictates that such firms might now be able to decline to cover other medical interventions to which they have the same objections – to wit, vaccination. To me, that case seems stronger than it does for contraception. After all, a personal religious basis for opting out of vaccination is already established in 48 states, excepting only Mississippi and West Virginia.
Nothing doing. On the contrary, the opinion emphasized, “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.”
In her epic dissent, Justice Ginsburg also raised the specter of owners who opposed vaccines on religious grounds, and pointed to the federal court ruling from just a couple of weeks ago. That suggests that while she disagrees with the majority on contraception, she too thinks vaccination is too sacred to subordinate to religious beliefs.
Now, this does sound like a court that could find a way to overturn the religious exemption to childhood vaccination. And if the religious exemption goes, I’m not holding out much hope for the philosophical exemption. I can just hear Justice Scalia railing about some crunchy-granola hippie mother attempting to claim the mantle of Socrates with her so-called “philosophy," and Ginsburg talking about keeping grandkids safe from polio.
Speaking of Scalia, remember the court’s ruling a couple of years ago in Breusewitz, confining all compensation claims for vaccine injury to the so-called vaccine “court” – ruled by the same federal agency that enforces the vaccine mandates?
Scalia wrote the majority opinion, which fawned all over vaccines as if they were ambrosia rather than a consumer product manufactured by a pretty sketchy crowd (big pharma). Like Ginsburg championing vaccines in the Hobby Lobby case, liberal Justice Breyer concurred in Bruesewitz, falling all over the federal government as the arbiter of all things healthy:
“I would give significant weight to the views of HHS. The law charges HHS with responsibility for overseeing vaccine production and safety. It is ‘likely to have a thorough understanding’ of the complicated and technical subject matter of immunization policy, and it is comparatively more ‘qualified to comprehend the likely impact of state requirements.’ HHS’s position is particularly persuasive here because expert public health organizations support its views and the matter concerns a medical and scientific question of great importance: how best to save the lives of children.”
No matter what their politics, it seems, the best and the brightest agree on one thing – they, not parents, know best how to save the lives of children. That’s how we got into this mess.
I can’t help noting that one of the companies that brought suit along with Hobby Lobby, the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, is owned by Mennonites. I bet they’re not crazy about vaccinations, either. And I can’t help wondering what their autism rate is.
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.
Jenny, I don't think the UN enters into this, but otherwise, yes. If you go way back, this is how atheists came to be allowed to claim conscientious objector status to military service.
As far as I'm aware, all states--aside from New York--with religious but not philosophical exemptions sidestep the issue by having religious exemptions that are in effect no different from philosophical ones.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | July 07, 2014 at 07:43 PM
The Vaccine Industry – manufacturers, regulators, and administrators- represent that the use of an exemption is not only equivalent to the withholding of medicine or treatment to an already ill or injured child, but worse because of the potential of infection spread. The same as a faith healing family using prayer in place of treatment, to where it is appropriate for the State to step in. With this perspective there is no legitimate use of a non-medical exemption.
This is the context the VI uses when promoting restrictive laws to State legislators. The only people who want to use exemptions are uninformed, misinformed, or ignorant.
Posted by: Vaccine Information | July 07, 2014 at 12:53 PM
@ Godfrey
"I do not think a domino conjecture in which philosophical exemptions are easier to topple than religious ones would have much going for it though, as the philosophical ones are on a surer constitutional footing (the states have no constitutional obligation to provide public education in the first place)."
Webster's defines "philosophical" thus:
"the study of the principles underlying conduct, thought, and the nature of the universe .. the general principles of a field of knowledge"
I think the word "philosophic" is poorly chosen .. as it implies the reason a person seeking exemption is objecting on nothing more than "principles". I much prefer to exercise an "informed consent" exemption.
Silly me .. I once beleived we had a right to "informed consent" .. and .. I think it would be difficult for the US Supreme Court to issue a decision that denies a person's right to "informed consent".
However .. I am confused if a person's right to "informed consent" is guaranteed by the Constitution .. or .. is it more a Humanitarian Right .. the result of the Nuremberg Trials following WWII?
In any event .. let's not confuse the question by labeling exemptions based purely on "philosophical" grounds. We either have a right to "informed consent" .. or .. we don't.
If we don't .. then the US Supreme decision to deny citizens their Constitutional Right to seek legal redress for vaccines injuries in State and Federal Courts is even more agregious than I originally thought.
As it stands today .. we do not have a right to "informed consent" .. and .. we do not have a right to sue for injuries resulting from medical decisions made by others for us.
That is not the country we once were ..
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | July 07, 2014 at 06:44 AM
Thank you Godfrey. I appreciate your posts and find them informative. Dorit Reiss's stance is of course, very much that of a lawyer paid to advise her clients, in this case she seems to be providing state potentially legislative advice. I do not think these statements necessarily reflect Reiss's personal views on religious or philosophical mandatory vaccine exemptions:-
"Religious exemptions are a legal mess. If they do not really mean anything and there is not a philosophical exemption, then the Establishment Clause comes into play for penalizing secularists. If they do mean something (that is, New York), the state has to build a large, appeal-prone administrative-law body."
In other words, legislation allowing religious vaccine exemptions but not secular 'philosophical' ones can be attacked on the grounds of discrimination and contravention of UN human rights legislation, something Western Governments try to avoid at all costs, (although human rights abuses are common beneath the 'media radar').
Cia - Thank you too. I totally agree Reiss is on a 'hiding to nothing' on vaccine exemptions. Interestingly in the UK Humanism, which does not believe in any 'supreme beings', is officially classed as a religion.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | July 07, 2014 at 06:08 AM
IMO all of the non-medical exemptions are at risk- the Personal Belief Exemption (PBE), the Philosophical Exemption (PE), and the Religious Exemption (RE).
Eliminating non-medical exemptions is the stated, written policy of virtually of all of the medical trade associations, and government groups that administer and regulate vaccination. Including groups you have never heard of- for example NACCHO, the National Association of County and City Health Officials.
Pediatric Infectious Disease Society
“The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society is the world’s largest organization of individuals dedicated to the treatment, control, and eradication of infectious diseases in children. As such, and given the background and rationale outlined below, the society opposes any legislation or regulation that would allow childrento be exempted from mandatory immunizations based simply on their parents’, or, in the case of adolescents, their own, secular personal beliefs...
Some states allow for exemption based on the secular personal beliefs of the parents. However, states do not allow religious or personal belief exemption from other laws or regulations designed to protect children. For example, parents cannot be exempted from placing infants in car seats simply because they do not “believe” in them. Likewise, states do not allow exemption from laws designed to protect others. For example, parents cannot allow their children to drive cars without a license, because this may place others (as well as the children) in harm’s way. Whether or not children should be vaccinated before childcare or school entry ought not be a matter of “belief”. Rather, it should be a matter of
public policy based on the best available scientific evidence, and in this case the science is definitive: vaccines are safe and they save lives...”
http://www.pids.org/images/stories/pdf/pids-pbe-statement.pdf
American Academy of Pediatrics
“The purpose of this statement is to recommend implementation of a mandatory influenza immunization policy for all health care personnel.”
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/13/peds.2010-2376
NACCHO
“While supporting the continued availability of medical and religious exemptions to school immunization requirements, the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) urges that personal belief exemptions be removed from state immunization laws and regulations.”
http://www.naccho.org/advocacy/positions/upload/11-06-Personal-Belief-Exemptions-2.pdf
The “education” compromises in Washington, California, and Oregon did not preserve the non-medical exemptions. Requiring a signature from a Health Care Provider to use an exemption converts your freely exercisable right of refusal into one mediated and wholly dependent upon your ability to find a sympathetic HCP who will sign. The Washington DOH had dozens of complaints of HCP's refusing to sign within weeks of the implementation of the bill.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/106205453/SB-5005-AB2109-1
Vermont was the only state where legislation was recently offered that successfully defended its unrestricted right to exempt.
Detailed information is here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/85943667/VT-S-199-amp-HB-527-Information
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80383332/S199-Commitee-Submission-With-Exhibit
Posted by: Vaccine Information | July 07, 2014 at 03:58 AM
@Jenny Allan:
I do not exhaustively follow Dorit Reiss (I also do not use Google Alerts, for one thing), but this post I think summarizes my understanding.
Religious exemptions are a legal mess. If they do not really mean anything and there is not a philosophical exemption, then the Establishment Clause comes into play for penalizing secularists. If they do mean something (that is, New York), the state has to build a large, appeal-prone administrative-law body.
Thus, philosophical exemptions with burdens such as the original AB 2109. As I wrote, what the the net effect of this would be is an open topic. I do not think a domino conjecture in which philosophical exemptions are easier to topple than religious ones would have much going for it though, as the philosophical ones are on a surer constitutional footing (the states have no constitutional obligation to provide public education in the first place).
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | July 06, 2014 at 09:24 PM
@linda1: If you cut and paste the link in your browser, the page comes up for the patent on the sterilization vaccine
Posted by: Nick's Mom | July 06, 2014 at 08:04 PM
Jenny and Godfrey,
The difference between religious and philosophical exemptions was always very tenuous, and several courts have held that a spiritual belief was the same as a religious one, that it was not necessary to even have any belief in a Supreme Being. It was enough just to have a strong and sincerely held belief that vaccination was improper. And now, since the Supreme Court has said that the state may not play religious police, but must just accept the parent's word that he has the necessary religious belief, it means that any distinction has been completely erased. Dorit will now have to give up that point, and just focus on abolishing any personal exemption (and I don't think she can do it).
Posted by: cia parker | July 06, 2014 at 07:17 PM
Godfrey Wyl states (of Dorit Reiss):-
"My understanding of her position is that she favors philosophical exemptions over religious ones."
Really Mr Wyl? Most of the comments and articles, authored by Prof Reiss, which I have seen, are most forcefully against any kind of parental 'choice' in vaccine decisions concerning their children. I would be interested to know the basis for your 'understanding' of Prof Reiss's stance on this issue.
Of course the word 'philosophical' is open to interpretation, whereas 'religious' objections to vaccinations are far more 'concrete'. For example, in Scotland the Islamic community recently expressed concerns about the Influenza vaccine, newly added to our child vaccination schedule, containing elements of the forbidden pig. I assume this also applies to the Jewish community. The Roman Catholic Church might well object to aborted foetuses being used in vaccine manufacture.
How do parents prove they are 'philosophical', or more to the point, why should they HAVE to? As Shell Torvas says:-
"A free society is a society in which the individual has choices. As our rights are being stripped away and infringed upon we are losing the right to choose."
Posted by: Jenny Allan | July 06, 2014 at 06:18 PM
A free society is a society in which the individual has choices. As our rights are being stripped away and infringed upon we are losing the right to choose. Dan presents an article that connects the dots. How could we possibly remain free when one out of every 6 children are vaccine injured or developmentally disabled? The only industry that is gaining ground is the pharmaceutical industry or oil as the rest of the population has headed downwards…
Posted by: Shell Tzorfas | July 06, 2014 at 04:11 PM
Only two of the three cases (this was a consolidated action) were about school exclusions. The third was that of Dina Check. The decision is document 39 here.
Jacobson was followed in 1922 by Zucht v. King, which explicitly deals with school mandates and flows directly from Jacobson. The observation that the Supreme Court has "strongly suggested" it does not intend to revisit the issue is something of an understatement. Certiorari has been denied recently in Caviezel v. Great Neck Public Schools (New York) and Workman v. Mingo County Board of Education (directly challenging West Virginia's lack of a religious exemption).
What would likely be required is a very narrowly tailored complaint arguing that some vaccines are not like the others.
@Bob Moffitt:
In effect, it did. The Supreme Court also refused to hear appeals in three other cases where the plaintiffs had already prevailed in refusing the contraception mandate as well.
The majority in Bruesewitz actually rejected the "unavoidably unsafe" language. This comes from what is known as comment k in the Restatement (Second) of Torts and was mentioned in a House Report.
@DoritReissIsEvil
My understanding of her position is that she favors philosophical exemptions over religious ones. Whether the net effect would be more or less burdensome is open to debate, but it would dismantle the scrutiny that New York State currently applies.
Posted by: Godfrey Wyl | July 06, 2014 at 04:02 PM
Nick's Mom,
That link goes to a page that is no longer there.
Posted by: Linda1 | July 06, 2014 at 02:34 PM
DRE,
It's just that it seems so unguarded a statement that it must be true. I would think someone in her position would say whether it were true or not that she had always been solidly pro-science and pro-vaccine, and had been becoming increasingly alarmed for the last thirty years as a groundswell of suspicion of vaccines started to rise. It doesn't seem likely that someone so at the heart of the debate now should have gone from 0 to 200 mph in such a short time. It seems more likely that they tapped her for her legal background, ideal for preparing public opinion for the withdrawal of personal vaccine exemptions, and told her to bone up on the issue very fast. Just my opinion.
Posted by: cia parker | July 06, 2014 at 01:48 PM
Oh Gawd, Contagion was on last night. Sanjay was in it of course. Eye roll. As if Gwyneth Paltrow or Kate Winslet or even the French actress would allow their babies to be hep b'd at birth.
Posted by: As if | July 06, 2014 at 12:25 PM
I thought this Hobby Lobby decision was suspect as well. Very surprising that they specifically singled-out vaccines as not falling under the ruling. Especially knowing that they now have a patent on vaccines that cause sterility and induce abortion/miscarriage in unsuspecting women. Not to mention the aborted fetal cells used in many vaccines currently on the market. I guess the public at large is completely oblivious to these facts and they don't realize the power and precedence this ruling sets for vaccination policy. God, help us educate them! Here's the link to the sterilization patent: www.freepatentsonline.com/5733553.html-Recombinantbirthcontrolvaccine-Talwar,GursaranPrasad
By the way, this abortifacient/sterilizing vaccine was used without the knowledge of women and girls given HepB vaccines in South America, so they have tested it on populations and know it works - and without the women or girls' consent - outrageous!
Posted by: Nick's Mom | July 06, 2014 at 10:15 AM
We have really just had a year of Dorit Reiss as a vaccine advocate (hard to believe). Of course, I pointed out in my very first article on her in July 2013 that before she went into vaccine advocacy she made a pitch defending agency capture.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/07/dorit-rubenstein-reiss-and-the-benefits-of-agency-capture-1.html
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever."
Posted by: John Stone | July 06, 2014 at 05:06 AM
A friend of mine suffered a severe skin infection after receiving a flu shot at a drugstore. Although the cause was a contaminated needle, not the vaccine itself, it's just one more sign of the recklessness with which vaccination programs are implemented. These places - drugstores, supermarkets, even airports, etc. are not required to keep any meaningful records. If my friend hadn't kept her receipt, she would never have been able to prove she got a vaccination there.
Posted by: Rae Nadler-Olenick | July 05, 2014 at 11:17 PM
Given that I truly believe a miscarriage (which was tested with no deformity found) wad caused by the flu vaccine and MMR I received the day before how on earth can someone against birth control pills say I should be forced to take vacinnations if I get pregnant again? I also have found research to support that years of infertility were caused by a high sensitivity to dental mercury which made the mercury in shots the tipping point. Who knows maybe the dtp which was made from fetal tissue lines sensitized my body to reject fetuses? So given that is feasible --as feasible as the pill causing abortio due to lack of implantation---then I absolutely should be able to refuse vaccinations and all people who oppose forced abortion (as sadly occurrs in china) ought to agree that pregnant and pre menopausal women have the right religious and philosophical to refuse vax.
Beware when you are told free speech should apply all places but this one...think people!
Those in the media who slam us for simply telling our truths are losing. Every day someone volunteers to me that their loved one was harmed by vaccines. Yesterday it was a woman whose husband was over vaxed in the gulf war and her daughter was born ill as were half the children of his troop mates. Doritos and Profits cannot compete against any of us speaking our truths out loud. Our motivation is based on compassion and an ethical need to share oir story. Theirs is based on a hysterical need to deny our truths. God help them if this ever touches their lives. God help them if they ever need to clean poop from a wall while the child who did it screams in pain. God help them when they look in the mirror and see it is their own blindness that did this to their own family and all of ours. Jesus had harsh words for those who bring harm to little children. It is not going to go well for those complicit in this tragedy. Whistleblowers take courage. If you all speak out at once they can no longer destroy any of you. Parents if we all speak out at once if we all tell our truth to 10 new people this month --it will be far more powerful than a tainted lying media that will not tell the truth until pharma Ads are banned from
The media. It's time. Autism truth day!
Posted by: Anita Donnelly | July 05, 2014 at 09:06 PM
Vaccinations are medical care and cannot ethically be administered without informed consent. Contraception is a lifestyle choice and no one is attempting to force anyone to use it.
Posted by: Ted | July 05, 2014 at 09:01 PM
DRE,
DR would like to end the religious exemptions, but will she get her way? It would mean getting bills passed in the 48 states that now permit them, and as we have seen in the past few years, thousands of parents get riled up and let their legislators know that they'd better smile when they say they're taking away our rights. DR says what she is paid to say, I really don't think she's personally invested in the issue at all. She said she hadn't even ever heard of the vaccine question until three years ago. What? So yes, it's what Big Pharma would like, they pay millions to hundreds to get their message out, but parents see autism etc. happening all around them, and many believe us over her (them). Not going to happen.
Posted by: cia parker | July 05, 2014 at 07:34 PM
What about the safety of birth control? This is not something I have explored in depth because my focus is on brain systems affected in autism, by all of autism’s myriad causes.
However, as a graduate student in biochemistry in the 1970s, I stopped taking birth control pills because of a possible link to breast cancer. Then came the news of diethylstilbestrol (DES) given to prevent miscarriage. First vaginal cancer was occurring in daughters of women treated with DES, then genital tract malformations, sterility, and testicular cancer in sons of mothers given DES.
Not all children of women treated with DES had problems, just as not all children develop autism or other problems following vaccination. Cases of cancer, deformities, and sterility were too serious to ignore. Treatment with DES was stopped. Further epidemiology or randomized control trials would not be ethical.
Vaccinations are for everyone, DES only for those at risk of miscarriage. Smallpox, diphtheria, pertussis, and polio were eliminated by vaccination. The increased schedule for vaccination in infancy for hep B, measles, mumps, chickenpox, and more should be stopped. Rubella vaccine (alone) would be more important to give than hep B, because of its horrific effects during gestation, but not right after birth. Synthetic forms of vitamin K given between 1940 and 1960 had to be stopped. That’s another “treatment” that should not be needed, and another long story worth revisiting.
Posted by: Eileen Nicole Simon | July 05, 2014 at 07:33 PM
@ Maurine .. I agree it is long past time when all 50 states should have "philosophical exemption" available to them.
After all .. as I said .. a majority of the Supreme Court already acknowledges that all vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe" .. making a religious exemption ... which can only be exercised against certain vaccines .. less effective than a philosophical exemption.
In fact .. I think industry and government do not want the issue of deciding the Constitutionality of a "philosophical exemption" to reach the Supreme Court .. because .. the consequences if they should lose that Supreme Court decision would cripple them in the only court that really matters .. the "court of public opinion".
Which is why I took great comfort in the furious response by the citizens of Texas .. when Gov Rick Perry decided he would issue an "executive order" requiring all female children of a certain age .. to receive Gardasil vaccine .. with or without parents being notified.
The Texas legislature overturned the Gov's decree within weeks of it being issued. The Gov also apologized .. admitting he may have abused his "executive order" powers.
I would call that instance clear and convincing evidence that a "philosophical exemption" has very strong public support.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | July 05, 2014 at 06:45 PM
Just want to mention that there is an excellent dissent on the Breusewitz v. Wyeth case by Justice Sotomayor joined by Justice Ginsburg.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Their dissent begins:
"Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the designs of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design. In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent."
Posted by: Twyla | July 05, 2014 at 06:13 PM
With the way rights are more and more treated, if not viewed, as government granted "privileges" (at least by those in government) and not natural "inalienable" rights, I'm not sure the exemptions are very safe. The most "elite" certainly intend to still have choice, and they have shown quite a bit of disdain for "the law" in other ways so far without being brought to justice.
I think they at least want to vilify the use of exemptions and garner fear-based support for prosecution when someone around an unvaccinated person gets ill, making it riskier for most to use them.
If the majority are better educated about the risks of vaccination (or possibly just more aware of the extent of corruption that is among the highest levels promoting vaccines), well I hope the seemingly growing local pushback against measures such as Obamacare might lead to something like, "What are you talking about with this 'exemption' garbage!? I have the right to say yes or no to a vaccine and that's the end of it, oh, and you're fired if you don't do something to undo and make up for the damage you've done to my family, and friends and neighbors!"
OT, but they have been marching onto our properties in California and other states to install "smart" meters we are all to have, unless we pay an "opt-out" fee each month to be only slightly less intensely irradiated than our neighbors, IOW you can't opt-out unless you're pretty isolated. Here's a recent radio program on wifi radiation, in case anyone is interested:
http://podcast.gcnlive.com/podcast/radio_lib/0702141.mp3
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | July 05, 2014 at 03:21 PM
Not opposed to mass protests and sit-ins. Benn there, done that in the 60's.
Bob M-but what about the states without a philosophical exemptions?
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | July 05, 2014 at 02:28 PM
John,
At this time children in 48 states can take the religious exemption to the shot requirement. I agree with Greg that I don't think any state is going to be able to overcome voter opposition to taking away all personal exemptions. While it's true that rich people would be able to homeschool their children more easily than the less rich, as long as the personal exemptions are available, it doesn't need to come to that. We saw in Vermont, California, Washington, and Colorado how much push back there is when legislators want to kowtow to their pharma lobbyists by proposing compulsory vaccines for schoolchildren. I was relieved to see the phrase "religious police" in the Supreme Court's decision, meaning that if the state has a religious exemption, it cannot then analyze the nature of the asserted religious beliefs to decide whether or not it believes they are genuine. So people can continue to say Vaccines violate my religious beliefs, so there. Missouri has tried to make it harder to get a religious exemption, but all that that has meant is that I had to drive downtown, park at the public health building, go in and ask for the form. Everyone was pleasant, gave me the form, a nurse asked if I had any questions about it, I said no (I thought that was probably not the time or the place to engage her), and I was on my way to leave it at Cecily's school. It asked which vaccines I wanted an exemption to. So unless it were a trap, that meant that it didn't have to be a religious conviction that they were all bad, but allowed the parent to pick and choose. I checked all of them though. That being said, I sincerely do not think there is any doubt that God is appalled at vaccines destroying so many of His children's minds and health.
Posted by: cia parker | July 05, 2014 at 01:24 PM
The Canadian was diagnosed with bacterial cellulitis (but of course it couldn't have been the vaccine that caused it)
Posted by: Concerned momma | July 05, 2014 at 01:14 PM
Right now I woul even just pray for decency in acknowledging adverse events. I just talked to someone in Canada whose daughter was told she should get a pneumonia shot due to a work placement and after her arm swelled. Next day there was angry rash either side of the injection site and her breathing was compromised. After consultation she was told to immediately get to the hospital. Rash was spreading and after being hospitalized and on iv she did recover. When the parent mentioned it must have been the pneumonia shot, the meds denied that could be the case!
Who are these people?!
Posted by: Concerned momma | July 05, 2014 at 01:12 PM
Dan, excellent article. I would take it further, and say that vaccination has become a religious belief.
Obviously, the government is tracking religious exemptions, which leads to several questions:
1) If the CDC is tracking who has received which vaccines, why aren't they tracking autism with the same precision?
2) Why don't they know how many have profound autism vs how many are high-functioning--and whether the number of vaccines received, and when they were received correlates?
3) Why do they only track a handful of cities in the entire country, and publish the (limited) results TWELVE YEARS after the tracked children were born?
4) Why do they not know how many of the tracked children were completely unvaccinated?
5) And why are we not loudly demanding answers to these questions?
Posted by: Taximom5 | July 05, 2014 at 12:03 PM
The doctors that I've spoken to are all against mandatory vaccination or the removal of any exemptions.
Of course, I don't talk to PrOffit (and neither do they).
Posted by: Linda1 | July 05, 2014 at 11:47 AM
Bob Moffit;
You sure would not get that distinction from all the news media -- birth control is abortion as far as they are concerned.
Posted by: Benedetta | July 05, 2014 at 10:47 AM
I understand the preferred media driven narative regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of Holly-Lobby is being portrayed as "preventing conception" .. but .. the ruling was not about religious objection to "conception" .. it pertained to religious objection to "abortion" .. as evident in the following:
"The HHS mandate requires the family-owned business to provide insurance coverage for potentially life-terminating drugs and devices, contrary to the Greens’ religious convictions—or pay fines to the IRS.
The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized."
Had the case been solely about "contraception" .. Holly Lobby "religious objection" would not have prevailed.
In any event .. the Supreme Court Breusewitz decision may actually provide the legal groundwork for arguments protecting "philosophical exemptions" .. as the majority opinion clearly determined that "vaccines are unavoidable unsafe".
Indeed, Justice Sotomayer's scathing dissent made some very powerful arguments that .. over time .. may provide a majority opinion favoring a person's humanitarian right to "informed consent" when forced to accept the serious "risks of an unavoidable vaccine".
After all .. Justice Sotomayer has been quoted saying "We are one trial away from proving that vaccines cause autism".
Therefore .. I think our best hope is to protect philosophic exemptions .. because .. when Obama care becomes the last resort of our health care .. the state will be in complete control of what treatments we are required to receive .. PERIOD.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | July 05, 2014 at 10:29 AM
Greg, I agree with you, the wealthiest, most educated will not want this.
Posted by: Concerned momma | July 05, 2014 at 10:12 AM
States may have religious exemptions, but some states are easier in getting that piece of paper than others.
In other states; little school nurses holds the power that make the parents go to a doctor to get the paper work for exemption. These little school nurses pretend they have never heard of religious exemptions.
My feelings are still crushed by the way our school nurse reacted even after I told her what had happened and that he is on epileptic medicine twice a day because of it. She did not seem to give a damn, or even express that she even cared.
And we don't live in Mississippi or West Virginia.
Of course - if I had trouble with the doctor -- which I did not -- at least in these states I could turn to a religous exemption and I would have. As for philisophical -- I am againest causing brain injuries to any one -- although I must admit that there are a few that I have meet along the way that I would not mind giving them a vaccine shot in the arm or the behind.
Posted by: Benedetta | July 05, 2014 at 10:07 AM
So much for checks and balances.
Posted by: Linda1 | July 05, 2014 at 09:11 AM
Hi Greg,
An interesting thought. I have always thought that this was one of the reasons why we didn't have mandates in the UK where it would be seen as economically discriminatory. But is it the same in the US - presumably the wealthy are not so dependent on the state school system?
John
Posted by: John Stone | July 05, 2014 at 08:36 AM
Dan, actually I am not too worried that religious exemptions to vaccines, or other exemptions for that matter is in such serious trouble. Think about it: we know that the pharma-government-media thugs have pretty all the powers to do as they please, but despite this, why haven't they succeeded with stripping away all exemptions in any significant way (a few speed bumps not withstanding)? It's a simply answer Dan: The rich and powerful more than anything other group don't want autistic kids as attested by the fact that exemptions are highest among the wealthy and educated. They will huff and puff all they want about stripping away exemptions, but when voting time rolls around, they know what's best for their own little dearies.
Posted by: Greg | July 05, 2014 at 07:54 AM