Tell President Trump That You Want Vaccination Choice Included in the Proposed Rule Protecting Statuatory Conscience Rights in Health Care
Note: Below is an excerpt from the Federal Register on President Trump's Proposed Rule Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority. You have an opportunity to comment on the need to include conscience rights for vaccination choice. The vaccine pipeline is chock full of new opportunities to compel Americans to uptake a product through shaming, job loss and denial of a free an appropriate education - a product that carries known risk of injury and/or death and yet whose manufacturers bear no liability. Like guns, vaccines have been designated by SCOTUS as "unavoidably unsafe." This simply means that by their very design and nature, they can harm you with use. Obvious in the case of guns. And obvious to most of us here at AofA when it comes to vaccines as well.
Even if you currently choose some, few or every vaccine available for yourself and/or your children, if you would like the have the OPTION of saying "NO" to a vaccine in the future, you should consider leaving a comment as a vote for your personal medical rights.
Please click this link and leave your comment on the site. And then copy and paste it to our comments, if you'd like to share it with us. Thank you.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/26/2018-01226/protecting-statutory-conscience-rights-in-health-care-delegations-of-authority#open-comment
###
A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 01/26/2018
SUMMARY:
In the regulation of health care, the United States has a long history of providing conscience-based protections for individuals and entities with objections to certain activities based on religious belief and moral convictions. Multiple such statutory protections apply to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, or the Department) and the programs or activities it funds or administers. The Department proposes to revise regulations previously promulgated to ensure that persons or entities are not subjected to certain practices or policies that violate conscience, coerce, or discriminate, in violation of such Federal laws. Through this rulemaking, the Department proposes to grant overall responsibility to its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for ensuring that the Department, its components, HHS programs and activities, and those who participate in HHS programs or activities comply with Federal laws protecting the rights of conscience and prohibiting associated discriminatory policies and practices in such programs and activities. In addition to conducting outreach and providing technical assistance, OCR will have the authority to initiate compliance reviews, conduct investigations, supervise and coordinate compliance by the Department and its components, and use enforcement tools otherwise available in civil rights law to address violations and resolve complaints. In order to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance and other Department funds comply with their legal obligations, the Department will require certain recipients to maintain records; cooperate with OCR's investigations, reviews, or other enforcement actions; submit written assurances and certifications of compliance to the Department; and provide notice to individuals and entities about their conscience and associated anti-discrimination rights, as applicable.
With this proposed regulation, the Department seeks to more effectively and comprehensively enforce Federal health care conscience and associated anti-discrimination laws. Specifically, the Department proposes to grant its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) overall responsibility for ensuring that the Department, its components, HHS programs and activities, and those who participate in HHS programs or activities comply with these Federal laws. In addition to conducting outreach and providing technical assistance, OCR will have the authority to initiate compliance reviews, conduct investigations, supervise and coordinate compliance by the Department and its component(s), and use enforcement tools comparable to those available under other civil rights laws to more effectively address violations and resolve complaints. In order to ensure that recipients of Department funds comply with their legal obligations, as it does with other civil rights laws within its purview, the Department will require certain funding recipients to maintain records; cooperate with OCR's investigations, reviews, or enforcement actions; submit written assurances and certifications of compliance to the Department; and provide notice to individuals and entities about conscience and associated anti-discrimination rights (as applicable).
I clicked and they would not allow me to make a comment. Does that mean the comment section is closed...probably. I hope I'm not too late.
Posted by: Kapoore | April 02, 2018 at 03:00 PM
Thank you for taking feedback on the issues of mandatory vaccination. I believe all U.S. citizens should have the right decide, hopefully based on good research and education. Vaccines are known to cause damage in some cases, and offer help in others. Right now, we don't know enough to be able to predict when the benefits outweigh the risks. So little research has been done on vaccines and their effects. Why are so many children injured each year through vaccines? Until we know more, it must be left to the parents of each child, the parents who will bear the brunt of the suffering and exhausting efforts if their child is damaged from the vaccine. Please do not mandate vaccinations, rather mandate better testing and research, so that some day there is no risk, or at least there is a risk that parents can feel is worth taking. Parents now do not know the risks, until after their child has been permanently damaged. Then they find out the risks. And that is not fair. America has always protected the rights of individuals, but mandating vaccines would remove individual rights, and do so in a too often tragic fashion.
Posted by: James Rolen | March 23, 2018 at 12:39 PM
I Strongly support proposed rule by HHS Docket No.: HHS-OCR-2018-0002. This Proposed Rule seeks to enforce "conscience" individual rights in health care.
My comments address specifically those surrounding
Exemptions from compulsory health care or services generally (42 U.S.C. 1396f & 5106i(a)(1)), vaccination (42 U.S.C. 1396s(c)(2)(B)(ii)), and mental health treatment (42 U.S.C. 290bb-36(f)).
Individuals and families need our rights protected to refuse vaccinations , as there are no safety studies of the full childhood vaccine schedule , nor of the newer adult schedule . Way too many vaccine adverse reactions have turned into serious injury . Our own child has been seriously injured, we have autoimmune disease in our family and cannot take this risk.
Furthermore , we need to compel true informed consent on Vaccines . There also needs to be freedom from coersion on psychiatric meds which have unstudied long term effects , and "psych cocktails" have never been studied together .
Please protect our freeedom of choice rights - without penalty on inclusion in schools or employment .
Posted by: Nira Eckstein | March 23, 2018 at 07:40 AM
The SCOTUS has classified vaccines as being “unavoidably unsafe.” Where there is risk there must be choice.
Posted by: J. Kelley | March 22, 2018 at 12:46 PM
Even the horses aren't safe from these pro-vaccine monsters :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-03-21/classs-action-launched-against-hendra-vaccine-makers/9572480
Horse owners launch $53 million class action against Hendra vaccine maker Zoetis
Horse owners have launched a $53 million law suit against the pharmaceutical company responsible for developing the Hendra vaccine.
The owners, from New South Wales and Queensland, are claiming that Zoetis Australia PTY LTD did not provide adequate warnings about the potential side effects of the vaccine on their horses.
Half a million horses across Australia have been vaccinated since 2012.
Another 1,500 have experienced adverse reactions and have not been able to return to their regular work.
The barrister instructed by LHD Lawyers, John Lowe, said Zoetis failed to inform horse owners of the potential side effects and have breached the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act by failing to properly trial and test the vaccine before its release.
"The reality is the vets that administered the vaccination initially didn't give the owners any warning at all," Mr Lowe said.
"Many of the horse owners would not have agreed to the inoculation had they been warned of the possible side effects."
Posted by: Hans Litten | March 21, 2018 at 05:21 AM
People should have the right to opt out of vaccine damage.
Posted by: pharmster | March 21, 2018 at 04:14 AM
https://www.survivefrance.com/t/concerned-about-vaccine-safety/19577/36
Could somebody please correct\counter these shills on this thread.
I am banned from all available social media's (farcebook doesn't like what I have to say apparently).
Zuckerberg you zuck.
Posted by: Hans Litten | March 20, 2018 at 11:43 AM
Here was my post:
Vaccine mandates are unconstitutional, dangerous, unethical and abused by the pharmaceutical/ CDC machine which can create a crisis by what they report on and feed the media scary news then make the vaccine solution to the problem.
With no long term testing ever - comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated, the vaccine program in effect is the long term experiment. We don't get the data except to see the declining health of our nation.
Informed consent, the option to say no to having something injected or put in our bodies must be a human right.
The herd immunity - for the greater good - has been way over used.
Examples:
Hepatitis B vaccine for newborns - does nothing to protect others and 99% or more of babies in America are not at risk for Hepatitis B until they become sexually active or share needles!
The dreaded whooping cough vaccines (DTaP and Tdap) are no longer preventing the vaccinated person from carrying the infection to others making the vaccinated individuals silent carriers of the disease.
Shifting disease patterns due to vaccination have negated the positive benefits.
Example chicken pox used to kill 50 Americans a year before the vaccine program for Varicella started around 1995. Today we loose 100 a year to shingles (same virus) due to the lack of boosting immunity that naturally occured for us all when children would have chicken pox. So yes - the vaccine works - but the end result is more death and suffering.
The Hip vaccine (Hemophilus Influenza type b) did a great job of eliminating meningitis and sepsis and epiglotitis from that bacteria. Sadly today the hundreds of cases of hemophilus disease are from non-type b bacteria. The same shift has occured for the Prevnar (pneumococcal vaccine).
Mandates don't keep up with this knowledge and those who profit from the sale of vaccines have no incentive to improve them when they are mandated.
Since there is no liability for those who manufacture and give vaccines when bad outcomes occur, we cannot and must not mandate this medical procedure.
Please include the option to refuse vaccines in every and all circumstances. In the case of some yet unknown dangerous pathogen, quarantine works just fine. Remember Ebola. We swooped in and quarantined the sick. Had the vaccine been ready - I'm sure everyone in the world would have taken it and it would have gotten the credit for ending that deadly outbreak.
Dr Paul Thomas MD FAAP (Pediatrician), Author of The Vaccine-Friendly Plan
Posted by: Paul Thomas | March 20, 2018 at 10:14 AM
I am commenting on proposed rule by HHS Docket No.: HHS-OCR-2018-0002. This Proposed Rule seeks to enforce "conscience" individual rights in health care. I strongly support this rule.
My comments address specifically those surrounding
Exemptions from compulsory health care or services generally (42 U.S.C. 1396f & 5106i(a)(1)), vaccination (42 U.S.C. 1396s(c)(2)(B)(ii)), and mental health treatment (42 U.S.C. 290bb-36(f))
Given the federal government's ruling that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe", it is clear that we must protect individuals' rights to be exempt from any and all vaccines. There is an immense amount of scientific research that has been published about the dangers of mercury (The World Mercury Project by Robert F Kennedy) and aluminum in vaccines ("Injecting Aluminum" documentary and hundreds of deaths by Gardasil). In addition, many of the other adjuvants/additives have published dangers. Until vaccines have been certified as SAFE and EFFECTIVE by outside third parties, independent from the manufacturers, it is imperative that we enforce individuals' choices to accept or reject vaccines.
Further, the conventional mental health system has no science supporting the theory from the 1960s that mental health diagnoses are caused by chemical brain imbalances. The drugs used to treat the purported imbalances are not well understood in terms of how they act, and there are no bio-markers that can help a doctor or patient understand the effect of the treatment. Unlike scientifically-supported evidence-based medicine for true medical diagnoses like diabetes (for which the diagnosis is based on biomarkers and the treatment's effectiveness is judged by biomarkers), there is no science behind psychiatric medications. The Gold Standard of unbiased medicine -- the Cochrane Center -- has repeatedly reported that the world (e.g. patients) would be better and safer without 98% of psychiatric medication. Prescription medication is the third leading cause of death in our world, and psychiatric medication is responsible for a large portion of those deaths. Given the unscientific nature of our mental health system, it is imperative that all individuals have the right to participate in or choose to not participate in this system.
Posted by: Sharon Kistler | March 20, 2018 at 09:40 AM
Below is my first (of two) comments in the Federal Register:
For those of us who still believe what we were taught in school about our foundational documents, and believe the rights and protections delineated in our Constitution are essential to what we mean as a nation and the well-being of its citizenry, and must be interpreted as broadly as possible, these new regulations are the best news from the federal government we’ve had in decades. No government should be allowed to run roughshod over our sincerely held beliefs concerning medical care or intervention. Nor may there be any test for religious beliefs. Yet here in California, and for much longer in Mississippi and West Virginia, state government dictates medical intervention for virtually all children, absent any compelling reason, such as epidemic infectious disease. What they have created is an epidemic of chronic childhood disease. A truly alarming state. Compared to all other modernized nations we are at or near the bottom in child health. Thank you, President Trump, for looking out for the welfare of the nation’s children. I fully support the new regulations.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | March 20, 2018 at 09:07 AM
I think it would be in everyone's best interest to go in and also read the details that they provide a link to. Yes, it is long. But it is informative. Deep into it they actually post a list of about 30 specific topics on which they are looking for feedback. I don't think that should be ignored.
Posted by: Jenny | March 20, 2018 at 09:06 AM
Brilliant articles on OUR allies websites today :
AutismInvestigated covers the possible Fitzgerald replacement (a vaccine fraudster no less ! Redfield)
BolenReport covers the very significant change found on the Varicella vax info sheet.
If we want to stop this international GENOCIDE we need to join forces.
Across borders, across continents, across language.
Posted by: Hans Litten | March 20, 2018 at 08:30 AM
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS RULE! VACCINES ARE UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE FOR SOME AND SUCH DRUGS CANNOT BE MADE MANDATORY, ESPECIALLY FOR FAMILIES WITH AUTOIMMUNE PROBLEMS
Posted by: Leslie Bradley | March 20, 2018 at 08:08 AM
Hopefully .. this proposed rule of HHS will eventually provide the basis upon which the greatly anticipated Commission to investigate the "safety and efficiency" of vaccines will become a reality.
Common sense dictates there is quite a distinction between declaring guns "unavoidably unsafe" and vaccines. After all .. unlike VACCINES .. government does not "mandate, require, recommend or approve" GUNS for every child in this country ..
In any event .. here is my comment submitted this date:
The constant .. ongoing increase .. in legislation throughout States .. seeking to mandate vaccine compliance .. overriding any and all present "opt out" choices .. especially philosophical exemptions .. for parents seeking only to exercise their humanitarian right to 'informed consent' must be ended.
Indeed, the single .. major abuse .. of public health care bureaucracies abusing "statutory conscience rights in health care" .. would be present vaccine policies .. such as .. how they are recommended and approved, how the voluntary VAERS process of reporting vaccine adverse reactions captures less than 15% of reportable reactions .. only two instances of many others that demonstrate how the "statutory conscience rights" of people are clearly violated .. particularly through the lack of transparency and fairness of the VACCINE COURT .. in which petitioners are routinely denied the judicial process of "discovery" that is critical to any petitioner .. in any court, criminal or civil.
Posted by: bob moffit | March 20, 2018 at 06:49 AM