House Hears Bill Making It Harder to be Exempted from Vaccines

This morning in the Washington State legislature, the House Health Care and Wellness Committee held a hearing on legislation (HB 2009) that would make it more difficult for parents to exempt their children from immunization requirements.

Currently, Washington State requires children to receive certain immunizations unless there are health reasons not to, the parents have a personal or philosophical objection to the immunizations, or they have a religious objection to immunizations.

 This bill would remove the “personal or philosophical objection” requirement.

For parents, this issue is very personal.

Rep. June Robinson, the prime sponsor of the bill, stated that she introduced the bill in response to the measles outbreak around the country. She says that a lot of diseases that were once eradicated are now coming back, largely due to the fact that kids are not receiving their immunization.

Ziggy Siegfried of Spokane questioned the seriousness of the outbreak. “Over the weekend I read that there were four cases of measles statewide. It is hard for me to be concerned about four cases of measles because when I was six years-old, back in the 60’s, there were five cases of measles in my living room.”

These mom’s told the Senate that they should be the ones to decide what medical treatment their children receive.

Proponents of the legislation, including former Secretary of State Ralph Munro and several public health advocacy groups, noted that 4.6% of children in Washington have been exempted out of the vaccine requirement, which is higher than most states. Seventy percent of those who have opted out have cited “personal objection” as the reason for doing so.

They argued that low rates of vaccinations, including some schools in which 30-40% of students have not received all the required vaccinations, are causing communities to lose their community immunity and therefore are risking the reoccurrence of diseases previously eradicated.

Opponents of the legislation argued that it is the parents right to decline or consent to health care provided to their children. They cited legal immunity given to pharmaceuticals and the fact that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out more than $3 Billion in damages from immunizations as evidence that there are risks for vaccines. They argued that parents should be the ones to decide if the benefits outweigh the risks for their child.

This dad showed up at 5:40 am so he could testify in defense of his parental rights.

Proponents claimed that the low immunization rate was often due to a lack of information. Several parent’s told the committee that the reason they are concerned about vaccinations is not because they are uninformed but because they are very informed and have concluded that the risk to their children outweigh the benefits.

You can watch the entire public hearing on HB 2009 by clicking here. The hearing on the immunization bill begins at the 41:00 minute mark.

This House Health Care and Wellness Committee has until Friday to take action on this bill. The members of the committee are listed below. If the bill is supported by a majority of the committee it would then move to the full House for consideration before moving to the Senate.

Rep. Eileen Cody (Chair)  360-786-7978
Rep. Marcus Riccelli   360-786-7888
Rep. Joe Schmick   360-7844
Rep. Paul Harris   360-7867976
Rep. Michelle Caldier   360-786-7802
Rep. Judy Clibborn   360-786-7926
Rep. Richard DeBolt   360-786-7896
Rep. Laurie Jinkins   360-786-7930
Rep. Norm Johnson   360-786-7810
Rep. Jim Moeller   360-786-7872
Rep. June Robinson (Prime Sponsor)  360-786-7864
Rep. Jay Rodne   360-786-7852
Rep. Shelly Short   360-786-7908
Rep. Steve Tharinger   360-786-7904
Rep. Kevin Van De Wege   360-786-7916

You are encouraged to contact your representatives and share your thoughts on this bill through the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000.

You can also email them by clicking here.

3 replies
  1. S.L. Mickley RN MN
    S.L. Mickley RN MN says:

    As a health care provider and having lifelong autoimmune disease, my interest in the epidemiology and philosophy of enforced vaccines is both professional and personal. While we’re in near panic mode over the (relatively) few measles cases, we have a fatalistic acceptance toward the steady increase of chronic diseases. This includes not only killers like cardiovascular disease and cancer, but also disabling conditions such as autism, 1/88 children, autoimmune disease, 50 million Americans, and chronic illnesses in children, 25%–double what it was twenty years ago. This is the real epidemic. And research regarding the role of vaccines in chronic disease is far from conclusive as the excellent article referenced by Marian P elucidates. As author Dr Hieb documents, in recent years there’s been more death and disability caused by the MMR than from measles itself. Consider that in the U.S. 36 vaccines are recommended for children under six, the highest in the world, and triple what some European countries give. And yet, our autism rates and health care spending are also the highest in the world. Additionally, enforcing vaccines is a type of “prescriptioning,” a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to recognize individual differences, that some fragile immune systems cannot tolerate the assault of a vaccine, a fact not often recognized by our pro-vaccine healthcare system. While health concerns about enforced vaccines are troubling, even more disturbing are the civil rights violations they entail. Enforcement eliminates both parental consent and informed consent, cornerstones of ethical healthcare treatment in a free society. And if the government can force us to vaccinate–a precedent is set, a door is opened for other medical interventions that can be required and enforced upon citizens, “for the common good.”

  2. Louise Christensen
    Louise Christensen says:

    Schools are hotbeds of germ passing. If a child isn’t vaccinated against some of these nasty things, it is the unimmunized child that is going to be harmed, not the others that are vaccinated, and pass it on to other unimmunized children. If the parents are convinced that the minimal harms of vaccinating are worth the risk of the harmful effects of the disease, they are the ones that have to live with an injured child and their decision that caused it. Somehow, non-science-trained people have forgotten just how horrible measles and other diseases are, especially caught as an unimmunized adult, so apparently a public campaign about the history of epidemics and the mechanism of vaccinations are in order, and the harm versus benefit ratio clearly spelled out in eighth grade level language. It ought to be emphasized that if you catch the disease as an adult, when you have lost any protective immunity you may have received from your mother, you will likely have a very nasty natural immunization process of fighting off the actual disease.

    I bet they vaccinate their dogs and cats!


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.