Vaccinated Flu Patients Might Shed Infectious Fine Particle Viral RNA More Than Others, New Data Suggests
Dachel Interview: The State of Special Education An Inside Look

Federal Register: The New HHS Religious and Conscience Rights Office WILL Include Vaccine Protections

by Ginger Taylor

Screenshot (2035)

Yesterday, the federal register published the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of the Secretary, HHS, A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department called, "Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority." It is the full rules that they are proposing to guide the office that they announced last week, that offer protections for those people who must decline to participate in a health care process or procedure due to their conscience or religious beliefs.

Their press conference on the office last week:

This begins a 60 day period of public comment on the new measures.

While the previous announcement and discussions from HHS on this new office did not mention vaccines, the proposed rules mention them TEN TIMES. And while we were a bit disheartened that vaccine coercion for students was not mentioned, we now see that the office recognizes that vaccine coercion is occurring:

"Despite the longstanding nature of the Federal health care conscience and associated anti-discrimination laws that this rule proposes to enforce, discrimination and coercion continue to occur. Relevant situations where persons, entities, and health care entities with religious beliefs or moral convictions may be coerced or suffer discrimination include:

  • Being asked to perform, participate in, pay for, counsel or refer for abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, or other health services;

  • engaging in health professions training that pressures students, residents, fellows, etc., to perform, assist in the performance of, or counsel for abortion;

  • considering a career in obstetrics, family medicine, or elder care, when one has a religious or moral objection to abortion, sterilization, or euthanasia;

  • raising religious or moral objections to participating in certain services within the scope of one's employment; and,

  • being required to administer or receive certain vaccinations derived from aborted fetal tissues as a condition of work or receipt of educational services."


It encourages, and even supports, families abilities to find physicians who share their vaccine point of view:


In supporting a more diverse medical field, the proposed rule would create ancillary benefits for patients. The proposed rule would assist patients in seeking counselors and other health-care providers who share their deepest held convictions. Some patients will appreciate the ability to speak frankly about their own convictions concerning questions that touch upon life and death and treatment preferences with a doctor best suited to provide such treatment. A pro-life woman may seek a pro-life ob-gyn to advise her on decisions relating to her fertility and reproductive choices. A pro-vaccination parent may seek a pediatrician who shares his views. Open communication in the doctor-patient relationship will foster better over-all care for patients."

This is great news. We didn't know if vaccines and students would be covered. The door is now officially all the way open for our community.

We will, no doubt, all be digesting this and planning on the best way to approach this new avenue in the next few days and weeks. But right off the bat I have a recommendation for comments that I would love to see submitted, so that this rule making truly gives us all religious freedom and freedom to act on conscience.

One of my long standing complaints is that in funding vaccine programs for states that do not offer a religious exemption, California, West Virginia, and Mississippi, the federal government is supporting the violation of the First Amendment Rights of millions of Americans.

The document does address federal funding in this section, saying:

"Third, providers of pediatric vaccines funded by Federal medical assistance programs must comply with any State laws relating to any religious or other exemptions."

However, I don't believe that this goes far enough. States that do not offer an unrestricted, unreviewable, unrejectable religious vaccine exemption, should not be given federal vaccine funding. Period.

I encourage to begin drafting your wise and eloquent comments to submit to HHS, and I hope you will include in your comments the urging that this section be amended so that not only do providers have to comply with state laws on religious exemptions, but that states MUST offer a religious exemption in order to receive vaccine funding.

So today is the day to share this post in all your groups, and to organize your comment submission. We do not yet know how HHS and the Trump administration will respond, and government/has a long and upsetting history of being able to follow a line of reasoning right up until it reaches the vaccine issue and then goes bonkers, but they said, "Vaccine" ten times. So they know it is part of the package that is coming.

If you don't vaccinate on religion or conscience:

Were you denied schooling if you didn't vaccinate yourself and your child?

Were you denied entry to school events?

Were you denied a job or discriminated against at work? Had to wear a mask?

Were you tricked into a vaccine you never would have allowed to be administered if you knew it contained pork products, bovine products or aborted fetal cell line products?


And start submitting your comments on their new complaint department. We need to push them to set the rules that protect us.


What are your suggestions on the new rules for the new office?



There has been some confusion on what this means for us, so allow me to clarify further what this is and what it is not.

The federal government cannot change state law. This office does not suddenly allow religious vaccine exemptions for those in MS, WV and CA. It does not have that power. It is not a panacea for our exemption problems.

The feds can't force entities to respect the religious and conscience rights of entities that are coercing vaccination, but it can stop funding those entities.

What this does is sets up a complaint process for entities that receive federal funding, and are coercing vaccination and other morally objective behavior, or discriminating against those who are conscientious objectors. The feds, if they found cause, could remove that funding for such entities.

This also does not currently apply to educational institutions. Why not? Good question. It should. We need a explanation and justification from the federal government as to why they are funding state education programs that are violating 1st Amendment rights. They have admitted it is a problem, after all (see above.)

So for those who were under the impression that their kids were going to get to go back to school next week in California because of this, sorry that is not what this does. It does open up a venue for you to ask, "Why are you funding a state program that violates my civil rights?" And you are owed an answer on that question.

This is not an immediate end to the problem. But we have been staring at a brick wall, and a door has suddenly appeared. To get through that door and to the other end of the maze to true vaccine choice, informed consent, and an end to the 1986 National Childhood Injury Act is still a ways off, but suddenly... there is a door.

Sherri Tenpenny asked some good questions in the comments that I would like to answer:

"How will this apply for:
1. flu shots/ healthcare workers
2. college entrance requirements
3. medical school/chiropractic school/veterinarian school applicants?
4. What about the military!?!"

My answers are:
1. It might help.
2. It may not help.
3. Who knows.
4. No way it will help.

If you are a healthcare worker of a federally funded entity, then you have a complaint that they will hear. But this is a new office, we don't know what they will ACTUALLY do, and how strong their political will is. What government says and what it actually does in the face of opposition, is two different things. I want people to use this tool, but be realistic that at best HHS is going to war with itself if they process our complaints and actually take any action. HHS drives vaccine uptake and holds vaccine patents. 

College requirements are set by states, and the statute does not seem to apply to educational institutions, so it may not help. But it should, and we need to push this office to begin to consider this problem that again... they have already admitted exists. (see above)  Same with med school, etc.

The military? That is the worst. They own you, body and soul. Conscientious objection in the military is a whole different animal, and they have a process. Some have been able to do it, but very few.

But the good news is that a door has appeared. And we can begin the process, perhaps even a good faith process, of raising all the questions that need to be properly addressed, even if most of the individual cases we want fixed don't have a formal pathway to justice.

This is a beginning, not a fix. Cautious optimism is recommended. As is action.


Karen Seaton

Nurse, on the frontlines, who has suffered, in health post vaccinations req. for work, who just two days ago took the intake on a 8 yr old ,2mos. Status post flu vac, developed autoimmune IDDM, recognize it for what it is...A crime against Humanity, go bigger, The Hague is now hearing on Corporations complicit in creating these Crimes, time to have them hear, what the USA has bowed down and rolled over for enabling.


Here's that link once again to attorney Alan Phillips' radio blog re the HHS/new division:


..."I doubt very much this department was set up for vaccine complaints. However, that shouldn't discourage people from filing them. Maybe they opened a can of worms..."

No. The new HHS division was not set up to handle school vaccine mandates. At. All. Filing your complaints to them won't even be possible, under the provisions as to how to file a complaint.

PLEASE - I would urge everyone to listen in to attorney Alan Phillip's summary regarding the new HHS division. He did a great job summarizing this issue so that even us 'lay' people can understand the issues.

Cannot repeat enough - this new division is not going to handle vaccine related issues. This is not about a new law, but enforcing (and tweaking) existing law already in place. It is essentially for medical healthcare providers' complaints -- not for school related vaccine issues.

Gary Ogden

I have just posted a comment, and I think we all should. What more important conscience right do we have than the right as parents to protect our children? We are in grave danger from the medical cartel, and the Trump administration is doing something right here.

Cynthia C Burke

My body my choice...that simple.

Maurine Meleck

I doubt very much this department was set up for vaccine complaints. However, that shouldn't discourage people from filing them. Maybe they opened a can of worms. That being said, I believe it would be easier to remove the "big water" surrounding the US Virgin Islands that get this department to do anything about vaccine choice.

Grace Green

I think this is really only about workers' rights. "People" don't have rights until they have some economic worth to society. That of course excludes children, and by extension, their parents.


As far as Womyns' Rights are concerned in the 21st century, it's not about whether or not Jenny McCarthy and i understand the significance Roe v. Wade; it's about whether or no Amy Goodman and Rachel Maddow understand the significance of Bruesiwitz v Wyeth.

Yep, i'm sure i spelled the B word incorrectly - don't ask me to do it agian.


It needs to go even further because untold numbers are denied medical treatment (kicked out of a practice, refused to be seen, etc) because we do not vaccinate. That is a violation as well is it not??

Shelley Tzorfas

Perhaps a religious exemption might include Jewish and Muslim people who are not Permitted to have Pork products, vegetarians and vegans who are not allowed to have Animal products, those against against abortions because Life begins at Conception for Christians- and for the rest of us- people who do not want Aborted Human Fetal Cell DNA injected into them because they know that it is a form of Cannibalism, even though the Pharmaceutical industry and Vaccine Makers' do not interpret the killing of Fetuses for the purpose of injecting their DNA into you or your child as such a big deal. To them it is merely Status Quo?



I listened to Alan Phillips' radio blog last evening regarding the new HHS division issue. I think it would serve everyone's best interests to listen to Alan's summary of this HHS division issue. He does a good job fleshing out all the particulars...

(He also speaks about the Suzanne Humphries issue during the first part of his program, so if you want to scroll ahead to get to the HHS portion of his program, start at around the 30:00 mark):

baby vs. bathwater

Now the rush will be on to eradicate religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions from every state. That's a gaping loophole for industry.

Furthermore, I hate the Sophie's choice presented by this. Even IF vaccine choice is secured and the gallop of for-profit euthanasia halted, it's quite ugly that this would come at the price of healthcare for gay or transgender people. That's potentially a lot of bad for a very slim, easily withdrawn promise of gain.

The more valid option would be to put up a fire wall between health regulators and industry. If the vaccine industry and the hospice industry can no longer buy legislation, our problems would be solved without compromising the welfare of other consumers.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO

How will this apply for:
1. flu shots/ healthcare workers
2. college entrance requirements
3. medical school/chiropractic school/veteranarian school applicants?
4. What about the military!?!

Carolyn Kylewsmom

All i know is that asking me approve injecting toxins into my child makes me complicit in a crime. I refuse.

Dennis Picknett

The fetal cell vaccine-content objection is a perfect 'foot in the door', because it rides on the back of the powerful pro-life movement. If it is established that no medical worker can be compelled, against their conscience to be involved in abortions, it MUST follow that they be allowed to refuse to be ACTUALLY injected the derivatives of fetal cells. Although there are vaccines that are not cultured using fetal cells it is then a much easier step to object to the other controversial ingredients (which are fortunately unarguably documented) like animal substances.
Let's hope HHS is able to act sensibly on the complaints which it receives, and there are bound to be a large number. Big Pharmafia must be spitting feathers because this is such a clear doorway to begin the dismantlement of the pyramid of fear and coercion that they have so long been building.

Stand Up!

This does not go nearly far enough.....OBJECTION to vaccination should NOT require ANY qualification whatsoever. The decision should be based on every individual's INHERENT right to decide what they choose to do with their body with respect to their health and well-being-PERIOD!


I agree with what others had to say above. While I am pro-life and abhor that aborted fetal tissue is used in the manufacturing process of vaccines, I'm equally as opposed to vaccines because of all the other harmful ingredients in them that are known to cause cancer, allergies and numerous autoimmune diseases.....and even death. And while I'm a Christian and am able to claim a religious exemption, I also want the freedom, as an American citizen with constitutional rights, to claim a philosophical exemption as well. We really need to push hard for this right in all 50 states.
May the Lord go before us and give us wisdom and strength.....and grant us victory!


Religious exemption can include fetal tissue and toxic chemicals. The body is the temple not to be poisoned.
Im going to file a complaint against our pubic school nurse for falsely stating one "can not attend school without an immunization card" and the superintendent for falsely stating "both parents have to sign off on the religious exemption" Here in MA, only one parent needs to sign the exemption.

After I phoned the school nurse and informed her the letter was illegal, she changed her letter and added the link for religious exemption information, she also took out the words "can not". She apologized to me for the incorrect statements.

David Weiner

This is encouraging, but we must be able to object to vaccines on broader grounds than that they contain fetal tissue. This measure really looks like it is geared toward the pro-life crowd.


Since some mandated vaccines are not made with fetal tissue we really need to be mentioning other foreign material and/or chemicals/preservatives as a conscientious objection

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)