Vaccine Exemptions Under Attack – ACTION ALERT!
Earlier this month, a bill was introduced that would make it more difficult to obtain a vaccine exemption in Minnesota. We defeated this same bill two sessions ago, but it has been reintroduced in the House as HF96 and in the Senate as SF143.
If you support parents having the right to choose a vaccine exemption for their child without being forced to attend an “educational” session with a physician who provides vaccines, we encourage you to contact your Senator and State Representative.
To find out who represents you, you can click on this link:
If you are writing to your Senator, you can refer to SF143, and for your State Representative, HF96.
Here are links to the bills:
Below is a sample letter to give you some ideas on what to say. There is much in this bill to be concerned about, so we advise speaking to what concerns you the most.
Dear Representative _______________ (or Senator ________________________),
I am writing you today concerning a bill that was introduced earlier this month, SF143, described as “Vaccination and Immunization exemption procedures modification” (or HF96, described as “Immunization exemption procedures modified”). Currently, parents in Minnesota have the right to conscientiously object to any or all of the recommended vaccinations on the childhood schedule. HF96/SF143 seeks to violate this parental right by making it more difficult for parents to obtain vaccination exemptions for their children.
The primary change HF96/SF143 makes to the current law is that it would require parents who are seeking a vaccine exemption for their child to attend an educational session with a vaccine-administering physician in order to obtain an exemption. Even if this educational session does not change the parent’s mind, this bill would give the doctor the power of approving the vaccine exemption. He/she could decline to sign it based on their OWN beliefs, not the parent’s. It would also require parents to provide an explanation of why they are requesting an exemption.
At face value it appears that this bill is simply trying to make sure parents are educated on vaccinations before they decline one or more of them for their children. However this is simply not the case. Evidence has shown that the parents who choose alternative schedules or do not vaccinate at all are the most highly educated parents regarding vaccines. They are not making this choice because they are uneducated, but because they are highly educated.
In addition, this educational session would be biased in two ways. First of all, according to the bill it must be provided by a physician that provides vaccines. This is clearly a conflict of interest. The physician will have a direct financial benefit if he or she convinces parents to have their child vaccinated. Second, the bill states that the information about vaccines must be consistent with information published by the CDC. This is also a conflict of interest, for it is the CDC that determines the childhood vaccine schedule, is responsible for the PROMOTION of the vaccine schedule, and their recommendation is that all children adhere to the schedule.
I fully support vaccine education and parents making informed decisions regarding vaccinations. However, that is not what HF96/SF143 is about. HF96/SF143 not only seeks to violate parental rights by making it more difficult for parents to obtain vaccine exemptions for their child, but also attempts to coerce parents into vaccinating their children by placing parents in a vulnerable position with a physician who is at odds with their vaccine decision.
Regardless of how one feels about the benefits of vaccinations, like any pharmaceutical product, they come with inherent risk. None of this risk falls on the doctors who administer vaccines or the vaccine manufacturers themselves, as they are protected from any liability via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Since that time the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over 3.5 billion dollars to families who have had children injured or killed by vaccines. Parents should have a choice of whether or not to subject their children to that risk without being intimidated by a healthcare provider.
So I am asking you to protect the medical freedom of families and vote NO on HF96/SF143. Please allow conscientious parents to continue to make educated healthcare choices for their children without interference.
Other things to possibly include in your correspondence:
- If you have a vaccine injured child, please let your legislator know. They need to understand that vaccine injury is real. This may be the only thing they remember from your letter and it will hopefully drive home the point that parents need a choice regarding vaccines for their children.
- Inform your legislator that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been appointed by President Trump to chair a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity. Perhaps it would be wise to take a step back and investigate vaccine safety before passing a bill that attempts to coerce more parents into vaccinating their children. You can also remind them that there is a pending congressional investigation into the allegations of CDC vaccine research fraud, which calls into question the CDC “education” doctors will be providing to parents seeking exemptions.
- One of the changes in the bill is that parents would now be required to provide an explanation of why they are partially vaccinating or not vaccinating their children. This is discriminatory in that parents who choose to vaccinate do not need to explain why they are vaccinating. In addition, if according to the bill parents are being allowed an exemption on the basis of “personal beliefs”, why does the state need to know what those beliefs or reasons are?
- Which brings up another change the bill proposes – the term “conscientiously held beliefs” is changed to “personal beliefs”. The term “conscientious” means “guided by or in accordance with conscience or sense of right and wrong”. Therefore, this bill would weaken the grounds on which parents are basing their exemption on.