The recent outbreak of measles has been all over the news
recently, and anyone who believes in the freedom of informed choice on a
question of vaccinations is proclaimed an hysterical “anti-vaxxer,” when the
science clearly advises caution.
Many states have laws that allow patients to exempt
themselves from vaccinations based on personal, philosophical, or religious
beliefs. That way, parents who are wary of government-mandated vaccination
schedules can make their own informed decisions about their family’s health.
But the Minnesota legislature is considering two bills, SF
380 and HF 393, that would hinder individuals claiming the conscientious belief exemption, making
it more difficult for concerned parents to protect their children.
Please personalize and add your own comments if
you have time!
Help Us Protect Freedom of Vaccine Choice!
Dear [Decision Maker],
The recent Disneyland measles outbreak has brought the vaccine debate front and center. I understand a pair of bills have been introduced, SF 380 and HF 393, that would create obstacles to claiming the conscientious belief exemption for parents who don't want their children to be vaccinated.This raises a number of concerns for parents, children, and patients in general.Parents have a right to make their own decisions about treatments for their children based on informed consent. Limiting a patient's ability to make informed decisions about what gets put into his or her body violates medical ethics.I know that the vaccination question is a hotly debated topic, even in the medical community. There is an abundance of evidence, for instance, that shows the dangers of exposure to even small amounts of mercury, which can still be found in flu vaccines. Studies have linked mercury to severe neurological effects and even autism. Despite the widely touted belief that the link between vaccines and autism has been "debunked," researchers found 83 cases of autism among those compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for vaccine-induced brain damage.You don't need to take my word for it. The pharmaceutical companies themselves have acknowledged the dangers of their products. One of the fathers of Merck's vaccine program warned the company that six month olds would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury after being vaccinated. Eli Lilly conducted studies which concluded that thimerosal, the vaccine preservative that contains mercury, was toxic in concentrations as low as one part per million, which is 100 times weaker than the concentration found in some flu vaccines.Congress needs to face the facts: vaccines are not 100% safe -- nor are they guaranteed to stop diseases. From 2005 to 2014, no child in America died from measles, yet 108 babies died from the MMR (mumps, measles, rubella) vaccine. I'm also troubled by the recent testimony from a CDC whistleblower which suggests a longstanding attempt by the CDC to cover up any adverse data on the safety of the MMR. Other experts believe the overloading of a young immune system with so many vaccines at once can cause genetic changes. Some generally support vaccinations but wish there were more scientific clarity.However, I think we all can agree that we need to keep information clear, unambiguous, and uncensored, and to allow people to make informed choices for themselves and their families -- especially when so much information and evidence exists of the possible dangers posed by some vaccines. Current law protects both my family's health and our right to make our own healthcare choices, and I call upon you to oppose ANY legislation that would remove or hinder the conscientious belief exemption for vaccines.
Sincerely,[Your Name] [Your Address] [City, State ZIP]