Scary Proposals From a “Vaccine Education Symposium” at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania

From Sheri Nakken at Vaccination Information & Choice Network:

“mandatory immunization against dangerous diseases does not violate the
First Amendment right to free exercise of religion”

http://www.chop.edu/cme/2007/vaccine/pdf/vaccine_std.pdf

Vaccine Education Symposium – Pennsylvania

Here are some scary proposals from a “Vaccine Education Symposium” at
the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania.

Featured speakers at the event announced: that exemptions to vaccination
are not protected by the U.S. Constitution and should be eliminated or
severely curtailed.

At the symposium, discussions involved:

(1) requiring vaccination of all nurses and other health care workers as a
condition of employment;
(2) passing laws to facilitate prosecution of parents of unvaccinated
children for economic damages when vaccinated children contract
vaccine preventable diseases;
(3) routine posting and publishing of lists of unvaccinated individuals in
public places in communities; and
(4) prosecuting parents who home school their children for child neglect if
they do not vaccinate them.

Read the published abstract that is suggesting that mandatory immunization
against dangerous diseases does not violate the FirstAmendment right to free
exercise of religion and that parents really do not have the right to choose!!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12037257&dopt= AbstractPlus

1: Public Health Rep. 2001 Jul-Aug;116(4):289-95.Click here to read Links
Religious and philosophical exemptions from vaccination requirements
and lessons learned from conscientious objectors from conscription.
Salmon DA, Siegel AW.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of
Hygiene and Pubic Health, 615 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
dsalmon@jhsph.edu

All jurisdictions in the US require proof of vaccination for school entrance.

Most states permit non-medical exemptions. Public health
officials must balance the rights of individuals to choose whether or not
to vaccinate their children with the individual and societal risks
associated with choosing not to vaccinate (i.e., claiming an exemption).

To assist the public health community in optimally reaching this balance, this
analysis examines the constitutional basis of non-medical exemptions and
examines policies governing conscientious objection to conscription as a
possible model.

The jurisprudence that the US Supreme Court has developed
in cases in which religious beliefs conflict with public or state interests
suggests that mandatory immunization against dangerous diseases does not
violate the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

Accordingly, states do not have a constitutional obligation to enact
religious exemptions.

Applying the model of conscientious objectors to conscription suggests
that if states choose to offer nonmedical exemptions,they may be able
to optimally balance individual freedoms with public goodby considering
the sincerity of beliefs and requiring parents considering exemptions to
attend individual educational counseling.

——————————————————–
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK
Vaccines – http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm