Connecticut Seeks to Remove School Nurses from Religious Vaccination Exemption and AAP Likes It
The American Academy of Pediatrics being behind a bill that takes away authority to sign off on the current Connecticut Religious vaccine exemptions from school nurses. Why would you remove the school nurse? And why would doctors be pleased by that? What more needs to be said?
By Jack Kramer
HARTFORD, CT — In 2015, in the midst of a measles outbreak in California, Connecticut’s legislature passed a law requiring parents to present an annual notarized statement of their vaccine exemption to schools and day cares.
That law was only passed after a heated debate of whether government was stepping into an area where it didn’t belong — religion. That’s because most of the non-medical reasons parents give for opting out of vaccines are based on religion. Before 2015, parents only had to submit the form once upon entrance to a school or day care.
The debate is about to repeat itself Thursday when the Children’s Committee holds a public hearing on a new bill that would eliminate a school nurse as one of the people approved to sign off on the forms.
Three dozen letters opposed to the bill have been submitted already.
The bill does not seek to eliminate the current religious exemption, but opponents don’t necessarily believe that.
The bill seeks “to permit ordained, commissioned and licensed members of the clergy to acknowledge parental statements concerning religious objections to vaccinations required for enrollment in public and nonpublic schools under the jurisdiction of local and regional boards of education, and to prohibit school nurses from acknowledging such statements.”
Currently, Connecticut allows attorneys, judges, family support magistrates, town clerks, justices of the peace, and school nurses to sign the forms.
“I have heard from school nurses across the state that parents are coming to them to sign the religious exemption form, to allow their unvaccinated kids to attend school,” Rep. Liz Linehan, D-Cheshire, said.
Linehan co-chairs the Children’s Committee, which proposed the legislation.
“The nurses see that many of these children are partially vaccinated, many times only one vaccination, the MMR [measles, mumps, rubella vaccine] is omitted from the recommended schedule and these nurses have a concern that the religious exemption is being utilized with no actual religious exemption,” Linehan said.
Connecticut does not require any information aside from the form to prove a person qualifies for a religious exemption.
“They (the nurses) essentially feel they are being asked to lie in some circumstances,” Linehan said. “Additionally some nurses also feel acknowledging the religious exemption is not only not in the purview of a nurse, but it is also counter to their medical training.”
Linehan stressed that the bill “does not eliminate the religious exemption.”
“All the other signatories remain except school nurses, and clergy is added for convenience,” she said.
The legislation has the backing of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents nearly 1,000 pediatricians in Connecticut. READ MORE HERE.
Pulse GP's To get £5 extra per child vaccinated under MMR Catch -Up scheme .
5 Feb 2019 by Lea Legraien .
States .After attempts to contact parents ,just pass it on to the school nurse .
Oh Boy! Without consent or informed consent for any procedure or treatment ,the nurses code of conduct is heading straight for the" chopping block" for sure ! They can "shout for help" towards the CDC or The Who if they so wish, both will likely respond saying "Your patient/client/customer, therfore your area of responsibility and accountability to get consent before a procedure or treatment not ours "
Posted by: morag | February 11, 2019 at 04:26 AM
I do not share your optimism at this time.
Public policy is a consequence of moneyed interests; interests that fund campaigns and reward profit pipelines, mandated indemnified vaccines being one.
Regulatory capture means there is no political reward in safety concerns, especially for long term health consequences that can be deflected by purchase point epidemiology, dollar driven journalism, and talking point politicians.
Yet I desire a better future, for you and your daughter as well.
Posted by: greyone | February 10, 2019 at 06:25 PM
No one can know what will happen in the future. But my daughter will be out of the public school system in less than four months, and I think we're safe. A friend sent me an article about a previously unvaxxed teen by his parents' wishes turning 18 and going out to get several vaccines of his own free will. What can you do? I don't think my daughter would do that, I've explained to her so many times how dangerous vaccines are, especially for those in our family. When I've asked her several times what she would do if someone offered her a free flu vaccine, saying it would prevent her from several days of acute suffering, she shouts No! But thirty, forty years from now, who knows?
And I think the era of official denial of vaccine damage is drawing to its close, and then there will be no putting that genie back in the bottle. Those in the cross-fire now should figure out how to move to another state. It's not that hard here to do.
I really just meant to say that every state is different. It's not the case that in every state it's extremely difficult to get a personal or medical exemption. And I support civil disobedience if there's no other way to protect your children from forced vaccination. Civil disobedience and the next step after that. But this policy is in its death throes now. It really depends on willing public support.
Posted by: cia parker | February 10, 2019 at 01:47 PM
I wouldn't get too comfortable with the idea of "not in Missouri".
the Missouri director of public health was embroiled in a coal ash scandal in North Carolina.
Those positions execute the political will of elected officials.
Pharma always want to expand coverage to increase profits, leveraging political will to increase the markets. It will not stop at any state border.
Posted by: greyone | February 09, 2019 at 11:47 AM
Then they came for the nurse.
Pharma For Prison
Posted by: Angus Files | February 09, 2019 at 04:43 AM
It is very ironic that in America (the land of freedom), the people don’t have health freedom anymore. I’d understand if it were China or North Korea.
Posted by: R Prasad | February 08, 2019 at 09:06 PM
Here in Missouri, it's not necessary to be a member of a church formally against vaccines, like the Christian Scientists. The religious exemption is available for anyone who wishes to claim it. They gave me the form at the public health department with the names of many vaccines and a blank next to them to check if I wanted an exemption from that one. It's not all or nothing here. I had to go back this past August and get another one because for the first time they were requiring the meningococcal vaccine for incoming seniors, and said I had to go and get a whole new form. When I got it, there WAS no listing for meningococcal vaccine. I wrote it in and made and checked a blank next to it. I also wrote in and checked flu, which wasn't on it either.
Every state is different and there are changes in many state laws from time to time. I don't know how many states have laws similar to the ones here. In August there was no gauntlet of pharma shill nurses, but just one nurse who signed the form as soon as she came into the room, without asking me a single thing about it. And I enjoy that kind of discussion. It may be that they had a record of the discussion we had three and a half years ago, and also could see that C had autism, so enough said. I don't think many health care personnel would try to force you to vax if you said Well, look at what this round of vaccines did to my child. I'd kind of like to know how far Pan, Offit, Dorit, etc., would go if you said that.
And I was alarmed enough at the thought of one or both of us getting meningococcal meningitis that I bought the nosode series, and we took all the four levels of what I had bought.
Posted by: cia parker | February 08, 2019 at 06:31 PM
This concept that "religious exemption" means no vaccines, and/or that you have to have an established religion (essentially licensed by the state, like so many fields of endeavor, I guess) that publicly says no vaccines for anyone is part of their code...
What if you just think it's immoral to support a promiscuous, drug-using culture, especially around infants, having them get hep B?
What if you think it's immoral to inject aborted fetal tissue?
What if you think it's immoral to inject animal tissue?
What if you think it's immoral to inject mercury when you can choose otherwise?
What if you think it's immoral to prevent chicken pox naturally, increasing the risk of shingles in seniors? Or mis-programming the immune system to incubate whooping cough contagiously?
What if you think it's immoral to vaccinate when an infant cannot effectively respond to a vaccine, and is at high risk of neuro- and immune injury from the vaccine, but you might want to vaccinate at a later age?
What if you think it's immoral to take any vaccine where the benefits do not appear to outweigh the risks, but you think some are worth risking?
What if you just think this whole vaccination practice smacks of state sponsored religion, and you don't think it's anyone's business to dictate what form of vaccination you practice?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 08, 2019 at 03:07 PM
Sorry, I thinking this was a post about flu vax mandates for healthcare workers.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 08, 2019 at 02:57 PM
Maybe put forward last year's research finding that the flu vaccinated released up to 6 times more aerosolized contagious viral particulates, i.e. healthcare professionals repeatedly required to vaccinate against flu could be spreading the flu as much if not more than anyone?
I'm really have a hard time finding the AoA post(s)--I'm pretty sure there was one-- but found this:
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | February 08, 2019 at 02:52 PM
no one should have to sign off on vaccine exemptions.
its a ruse.
a for profit ruse.
Posted by: greyone | February 08, 2019 at 01:26 PM
Ah.. America, once the land of Religious freedoms. Connecticut will reduce the numbers of people who could sign off on a religious exemption to vaccines. You won't be able to do it at the school where you, as a parent or caregiver must go every weekday in the morning or afternoon. I know there are some dads doing this, even some male teachers at the elementary school but let's face it. This is another affront on women.
This is a Pharmaceutical Manipulation. They know full well if they redirect and reduce your rights little by little, they will become the only dominant decision makers and their motive is The God Of Money.
Why else would they get to scrutinize your religious beliefs, investigate, and tear them apart? Where else have we seen the government go after people based on their religious beliefs? Maybe next they should just microchip people according to their religious beliefs?
Posted by: Shelley Tzorfas | February 08, 2019 at 01:16 PM
This form also has to be notarized which is not revealed in the article. In this case, the person who notarizes the form, signs it. Not the school nurse, unless she is the notary. This is a religious subject and parents should take this form to their religious leader and they should sign the form, as they do in California. Remember State of CT. leaders, you came up with this form, not school nurses.
Posted by: Kaye | February 08, 2019 at 01:01 PM
Town clerks? Would that mean employees of the public health department? I think that would be good enough. I've had to go to the public health department the last two times I got a religious exemption for my daughter (it's not required yearly here) and had to speak with the nurses working there at the time. When I got it three and a half years ago, there was one quiet, sympathetic nurse, and two young ones who had been trained at Shill School, just mouthing the usual platitudes. Piece of cake. It was easy, they signed it right away. Of course it would be better if vaccines were completely voluntary everywhere, but in the meantime, I don't think it's that bad to go to the public health clinic or something similar. Most of them are well aware of the vaccine debacle and don't want to be guilty of doing something harmful to a child. Pan, of course, is an exception.
Posted by: cia parker | February 08, 2019 at 10:16 AM
Anyone try to contact Blumenthal? He seems like such a mench.
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | February 08, 2019 at 09:12 AM
As a RN I would ALMOST be okay with this if it was to be enforced across all disciplines with an eye towards consistency wherein "herd immunity" is the mantra. However, I often see MDs and PAs who are not vaccinated for the flu (we advertise status with drop-downs on our IDs, HIPAA be damned), thereby all but confirming that they are likely not up to date on boosters either.
Posted by: Tom | February 08, 2019 at 08:40 AM
That the AAP supports a bill that takes away authority to sign off on the current Connecticut Religious vaccine exemptions from school nurses should surprise no one .. considering the AAP recently supported enacted NYS RHA legislation that removes abortion from the state’s penal code altogether; the homicide statute still defines a “person” as “a human being who has been born and is alive.” Killing a baby once born was and is still considered a homicide."
Is it just me .. or does the removal of abortion from the state's penal code provide opportunity for a MAN who does not want his wife or girlfriend to have a child to violently assault the pregnant woman with the intention of causing a miscarriage .. and if successful is charged only for the assault .. and .. NOT CHARGED FOR THE HOMICIDE OF AN INFANT THE WOMAN WANTED TO BIRTH?
NYS RHA also provides abortion to be provided by other than qualified, licensed professional doctors.
I don't like conflating the two issues .. abortion and vaccines .. but the hypocrisy of the AAP when it comes to defending a "woman's right to choose" .. and .. the complete opposite when that very same WOMAN prefers to CHOOSE what vaccines her precious child receives?
Posted by: Bob Moffit | February 08, 2019 at 07:24 AM