by Sayer Ji, Green Med Info:

Minor Children Consenting to Vaccination Without Parental Consent Forward This Urgent Alert to Friends and Family Residing in Washington D.C. Attend Hearing on at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday June 26^th

Dear Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia NVIC Advocacy Team Members,

Your action is needed to help stop a bill that is scheduled to go before the Council of the District of Columbia for consideration on Wednesday June 26, 2019. This bill is sponsored by Councilmember Mary M. Cheh.You can access the public hearing notice at http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/42000/B23-0171-HearingNotice1.pdf.

B23-0171 would add a new section into the existing District of Columbia Municipal Regulations DCMR 22-B 600 that would allow a minor child of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the minor is capable of meeting the informed consent standard and where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. According to this proposal, a minor shall be deemed meeting the informed consent standard if the minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks ordinarily inherent in the medical care.

REASONS TO OPPOSE B23-071:

B23-0171 should be OPPOSED because it eliminates parental rights by removing the requirement that vaccine administrators obtain the voluntary, informed consent of a minor child’s parent in order for the child to be vaccinated.

B23-0171 blatantly ignores the existing intent of other laws and regulations putting parents in charge of vaccination decisions including section 5300.11 providing the legal right of the parent to claim a medical or religious exemption to vaccination.

B23-0171 places vaccines in a special category to allow legally unaccountable individuals to persuade a minor child to get vaccinated without the knowledge or consent of the parent. Medical practitioners, schools, and others should never be permitted to coerce impressionable minor children into a medical procedure that is capable of causing injury or death behind their parents’ backs. Unlike medical, school or other personnel administering vaccines, parents are legally accountable and financially responsible for the health care and education of a minor child when that child experiences a vaccine reaction and becomes chronically ill or disabled.

Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury or death. Minor children may not be aware of family and their own personal history of vaccine reactions or personal contraindications to relay to the vaccine administrator. The U.S. federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded more than $4 billion to vaccine victims since 1988 but two out of three vaccine injured plaintiffs are turned away without financial support.

Both The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and U.S. Supreme Court Decision Russell Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al guarantee that vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other vaccine administrators have no legal accountability or financial liability in civil court when a government recommended or mandated vaccine(s) causes permanent injury or death. 

By consenting to a vaccine, a child alone is acknowledging that they have abdicated their constitutional right to a trial by jury should they become injured. It is highly questionable that they understand the profound legal consequences including a 3 year statute of limitations on finding legal representation and filing a vaccine injury claim with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It is also much less likely vaccine reactions will be recognized and connected to the vaccine by a child on their own and filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

There is scientific evidence that the physical, mental and emotional development of children, including pre-adolescents, varies and is often not sufficient to enable children to make well-reasoned decisions about risk taking involving their health and well-being. Also, this one-sided proposal actually fails at implementing informed consent rights for the child because it does not equally permit a child to use their same application of their comprehension of risks and benefits to refuse a vaccine their parents have previously chosen for their child to receive. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has an entrenched history of protecting the right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children. A governing body must prove that infringement on the parents’ liberty is essential to fulfill a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of fulfilling this state interest. Simply proving the regulation is reasonable is not sufficient. This proposed bill does not even come close to making this case.

The legal right of parents to give their informed consent for minor children to take medical risks, which can result in injury or death, trumps the goals of health agencies or vaccine corporations and medical organizations, whose employees, stockholders or members profit or professionally benefit from increased, widespread vaccine use.

ACTION NEEDED:

Attend the hearing on Wednesday 6/26/2019 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 500 of the John A. Wilson building, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington D.C., 20004. Those who wish to testify should contact Malcolm Cameron, Committee Legislative Analyst at (202) 654-6179 or [email protected] , and provide your name, organizational affiliation (if any), and title with the organization, preferably by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 24, 2019. Witnesses should bring 15 copies of their written testimony to the hearing. The Committee allows individuals 3 minutes to provide oral testimony in order to permit each witness an opportunity to be heard.

Read More @ GreenMedInfo.com