Monday, September 24, 2012

NJ Usurping Parental Rights

The People's Republic of New Jersey is seeking to erode parental rights when it comes to vaccination.
Forced vaccination of every child is on the way with new legislation that makes the rights of exemption much more burdensome.

All 50 states across the nation offer parents the ability to exempt their child(ren) from vaccination requirements. This week, however, New Jersey legislators advanced a bill that would make such exemptions harder for parents to acquire in an attempt to crackdown on “easy exemption policies”.

Senate Bill 1759 was approved 6-2 by the state’s Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee last week. The bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D – Bergen) and Senator Joseph Vitale (D – Middlesex), would place a greater burden on parents to clarify a “valid reason” for not wanting their kids vaccinated. It would define and further restrict what the definition of a valid reason is, limiting options for opting out.

For example, parents would no longer be able to claim concerns about the safety of vaccines. A parent having a legitimate health concern over vaccine adjuvants and chemicals negatively impacting their child, potentially forever, would no longer count under the new law. Senator Vitale was quoted at the hearing as saying, “We cannot allow widespread exemption from immunization based on fear and false science.”

New Jersey, which allows for both medical and religious exemptions, would also require physician documentation “indicating that the vaccine is medically contraindicated for a specific period of time.”

The bill was supposedly drawn up due to a whooping cough outbreak in addition to a rise in parents claiming exemptions throughout the state in recent years. However, as reported previously by Natural News, research released earlier this year showed strong evidence that whooping cough outbreaks among vaccinated children were actually higher than in unvaccinated children.

In addition, Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) admitted the company’s whooping cough vaccine had never been tested for long-term efficacy, and that the shot does not provide long-term protection against the illness. It should be noted that a single injection of GSK’s Boostrix vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) would dose the average 11-year-old with 100 micrograms of formaldehyde and 400 micrograms of the heavy metal aluminum according to the National Vaccine Information Center.

Placing further burden on parents who want to opt out of vaccinations is a thinly veiled intimidation tactic states are now utilizing to dissuade parents from exempting their child(ren) from vaccinations. Like similar legislation that passed in Washington and that is in the process of passing in California, this bill serves only to further harm parental rights and perpetuate the idea that it is the state, and not parents, that knows what is best for a child.

The bill is now set to go to the full New Jersey Senate for a vote.
The text of the bill includes this:
"a written statement submitted to the secondary school or institution of higher education, as applicable, by the student, or the student's parent or guardian if the student is a minor, explaining how the administration of the vaccine conflicts with the bona fide religious tenets or practices of the student, or the parent or guardian, as appropriate; except that a general philosophical or moral objection to the vaccination shall not be sufficient for an exemption on religious grounds"

So if you have a moral or philosophical objection to a vaccine - or perhaps think it is unsafe - that is not sufficient grounds to be exempted. Parents no longer get to decide.

If this bill passes in NJ - the State will own every child in New Jersey and decide what gets pumped into his/her body.

And despite the fact that children are maimed and killed by certain vaccines - and that drug makers have been known to produce false data and lie about their products, these legislators who are promoting this legislation don't want parents not vaccinating due to "fear and false science" .. imagine that! I wonder how much in campaign donations these legislators are receiving from Big Pharma. I will wager this has more to do with money than whooping cough. posted this:
Legislation that would clarify what constitutes a legal exemption under New Jersey's school immunization law was approved by the state Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee on Thursday after nearly three hours of contentious testimony. The bill now goes to the full Senate for a vote.

The bill (S.B. 1759) was approved, 6-2, after about a dozen people spoke, mostly against the bill, saying parents have a right to opt out of child immunization. The law would require documentation when a parent wants to exempt a student from mandatory immunizations for medical or religious reasons.
The bill to strengthen New Jersey's immunization policy was introduced after an outbreak of whooping cough this year.

The hearing was held the same day that a study was released by doctors at Emory University in Atlanta that found that nonmedical exemptions increased more rapidly in states with what it called "easy exemption policies" than in states with more stringent policies. Rates of exemptions for nonmedical reasons, the study found, were 2.31 times as high in states with less stringent rules.

Critics of the bill, who attended the hearing on Thursday wearing buttons that said "No on 1759," called it a violation of their religious and parental freedoms and questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.

Proponents say the bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D., Bergen) and Sen. Joseph Vitale (D., Middlesex), would codify the exemption process, limiting the ability of parents to claim general philosophical or safety concerns as religious objections, and should lead to an increase in the percentage of students who are immunized. They say there has been a marked increase in the number of students who have claimed religious exemptions over the last five years.

"The intent of this bill is to spell out the very specific guidelines that a student or parent would have to go through to be exempted from mandatory student vaccination," Vitale said. "While we want to respect people's religious beliefs and legitimate medical concerns, we cannot allow widespread exemption from immunization based on fear and false science. Not only does it put the student at risk, but it creates a risk to the general public health and well-being."

Under the Senate bill, a student or a student's parents would be required to present a written statement from a physician "indicating that the vaccine is medically contraindicated for a specific period of time" and why, according to the bill's statement.

For a religious exemption, the student or parent would need to explain how the vaccine conflicts with "the bona fide religious tenets or practices of the student, or the parent or guardian." The bill says that "a general philosophical or moral objection to the vaccination is not sufficient for an exemption on religious grounds; and an exemption on religious grounds may be suspended by the commissioner of Health and Senior Services during the existence of an emergency as determined by the commissioner."

Opponents of the legislation said it infringed on their religious freedoms. They said meeting the new requirements would be both time-consuming and expensive and would put the government in the position of ruling on what constitutes legitimate religious belief.

"The legislation legitimizes a witch hunt," said Louise Kuo Habakus, director of the Center for Personal Rights, an anti-vaccination group. "The burdens placed on religious parents are too high."

Victoria Jakelsky, who also testified against the bill, echoed many of the concerns raised by Habakus. Jakelsky, who is state coordinator for but was not speaking on behalf of the organization, said the bill raises constitutional questions.

"This bill, if passed, clearly is an overreach of power," she said. "If parents have objections to immunization, they should have the right to opt out."

Howard Britt, a pediatrician, testified in favor of the bill, saying that states have the authority to enact compulsory immunization laws and that there is "plenty of proof that vaccines work."

"The state has an overriding interest in protecting the health of the community," he said.

Drew Harris, chairman of the New Jersey Public Health Institute, said there had been a threefold increase in exemptions over the last four years, since the state streamlined the exemption process and allowed a simple statement to be submitted. The exemption has been used to mask other issues, he said.
If there has been an increase in exemptions by parents who do not want their children poisoned by vaccines then perhaps they should be investigating the vaccine makers instead of making it more difficult to opt out of vaccinations!

The actual text of Senate Bill 1759 is here.