Oppose S. 2359 and H. 4096 - 2 Proposed Bills in Massachusetts that Violate Basic Human rights, Medical Ethics, and Principles of Informed Consent.

On September 4, 2019, Senator Rebecca Rausch filed a bill titled “An Act Promoting Community Immunity” S. 2359 and H. 4096 (previously SD. 2548/HD. 4470) with Representative Paul Donato. The “Community Immunity Act” is being advertised as a way to standardize and centralize immunization requirements and exemption processes, in part by transferring more administrative power to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH).

If implemented, as written The Community Immunity Act would affect children of grade levels from kindergarten to grade 12 in public, private and charter schools, child care centers, any school activities open to home-schooled children, recreational camps, and institutes of higher learning (both public and private).

Health Choice 4 Action has identified several aspects of this bill that violate basic human rights, medical ethics, and principles of informed consent. Provisions in this bill would allow vaccination without parental consent, limit medical exemptions for medically-fragile children, and limit religious freedom with respect to vaccination exemptions. Additionally, provisions in this bill would increase the risk of discrimination and bullying for those who use medical and religious exemptions. Finally, the taxpayer cost and administrative burden of this bill are not justified given the historically low incidence of vaccine-preventable illness in the Commonwealth and the current processes in place already working to safeguard public health in Massachusetts. The Legislature and DPH should be focused on more significant public health threats, including the opioid crisis, rising rates of chronic illness in children and adults, and the surge in psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders among children and adolescents.

Key Provisions of the “Community Immunity Act”

1. Vaccination of Minors without Parental Consent or Knowledge.

This bill would allow physicians to perform “preventative care”(including vaccinations), on a child if a provider felt that “performance of the preventive care would be in the minor’s best interest”. The administering provider would not be required to have an established relationship with the child or consult their medical history. Records of this care would be kept confidential from parents, and the administering provider would be protected from liability with regard to this care. No minimum age is specified in the bill. (Section 5(n), 6, 7; Pages 8, 9, 12)

• WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: Parents everywhere should be outraged and frightened by this egregious and unnecessary violation of basic human rights, informed consent, and medical autonomy. Outside of acute emergencies, a free, fair and democratic society does not allow physicians to make medical decisions without adequate medical history or informed consent. Additionally, this provision is a violation of Article 3 of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights.

2) Medically-Fragile Children May Not Receive Exemptions They Need.

A medical exemption may be denied if the condition is not for a “generally accepted contraindication,” which as defined by the CDC are mostly limited to previous anaphylaxis to a vaccine, or severe immune-compromising conditions for live virus vaccines only. Exemptions based on other kinds of serious prior adverse events, medical conditions or family history (ex. seizures, brain or spinal cord inflammation, severe immune reactions) would be subject to a “review by an expert licensed provider,” may require further disclosure of protected health information, and can ultimately be denied. (Section 5(f),(j); Pages 7-8)

• WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: This provision removes the parent and primary care provider as the ultimate authority on a child’s health, and transfers the medical decision making to a government-appointed provider, with no relationship to the child. There is no provision for the expertise of the “provider” despite the fact that different types of medical specialists have vastly different experience and aptitude with regard to adverse vaccine reactions, vulnerable sub-populations (people more prone to vaccine side effects) or individual medical conditions. If the application is denied, the child would be barred from school unless they are vaccinated.

3) Updated Religious Exemption Requirements Violate Religious Freedoms.

Applicants must agree, in writing, that refusing to immunize may “result in serious illness or death” of the child and is “against public health policy and may result in serious illness or death of others.” Additionally, the bill changes the language regarding religious beliefs from ‘immunization conflicts with sincere religious beliefs’ to ‘sincere religious beliefs prohibit immunization.’ (Section 5(g); Page 7)

• WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: These statements may constitute “compelled speech,” which explicitly violates the provision for free speech in the First Amendment. These statements may also conflict with the religious beliefs of many families utilizing the exemption and may expose these families to future legal action. Further, the updated language more narrowly defines how a religion may view vaccination with regard to exemption, limiting the free exercise clause of the constitution.

4) DPH is Granted Excessive Power without Limits of Democratic Process.

The bill provides that DPH may change the application forms for religious or medical exemption at any time. Additionally, DPH shall ‘promulgate regulations to administer, implement, and enforce’ this act, inclusive of establishing necessary herd immunity rates. (Section 5(h),(u); Page 7,10)

• WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: The bill does not specify or limit what changes could be made to the application forms, which could make exemptions even more difficult or impossible to receive. In regard to enforcement, no actual regulations are defined, but granting this unrestricted authority to DPH could feasibly lead to police involvement, use of force, Child Protective Services participation, or other aggressive means of enforcement.

In addition to the provisions noted above, there are a number of other elements of the “Community Immunity Act” which are unethical, discriminatory, and unnecessary. The radical alterations to our state policies and procedures proposed by this bill will result in unjustified and unneeded spending at taxpayer expense. This bill will also vastly increase administrative burden at the DPH, which is already burdened by a number of other public health threats.

We encourage citizens to oppose this bill. Please see our website for additional details and provisions regarding this complex legislation. www.opposeoverreach.com

Full Text of the Bill:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/SD2548
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/HD4470

We are collecting signatures of MA residents to present, by hand, to the Joint Committee on Public Health the day of the hearing. Your information is not public on this website petition.