Protect Vaccine Choice in Colorado

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 Colorado legislature is considering a bill, SB 163, that would restrict the religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccination. Another bill, SB 156, would allow minors to be vaccinated for HPV and hepatitis B without parental knowledge or consent.

Write to your legislators and urge them to oppose these bills!

Please personalize and add your own comments if you have time!

Recipients

Your State Senator or Senators
Your State Representative or Representatives

Contact

*Required fields

* Title:

* First Name:

* Last Name:

* Your Email:

* Address 1:

Address 2:

* City:

* State / Province:

* ZIP / Postal Code:

* Phone Number:

Yes, I would like to receive periodic updates and communications from Alliance for Natural Health USA.

Remember me. What's this?

Message

Please oppose SB 163 and SB 156

Dear [Decision Maker],

* Personalize your message

I was disappointed to hear that the Colorado legislature is considering a bill, SB 163,  that would restrict the religious and personal belief exemptions to vaccination. Another bill, SB 156, would allow minors to be vaccinated for HPV and hepatitis B without parental knowledge or consent.

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.

California recently eliminated all non-medical exemptions to vaccination for public and private school students. In response, a lawsuit has been filed arguing that the state is failing to provide a constitutionally mandated public education system open on equal terms to all children. Without a public health emergency, it is illegal to restrict a patient's freedom of choice when vaccination rates are already extremely high, and concerned parents will sue in any state that attempts to eliminate such freedoms.

Not only is there the threat of legal action; questions of safety also make it unethical to eliminate exemptions to vaccines.

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. There have also been no safety tests to determine what specific level of aluminum (a common vaccine adjuvant) is safe to inject into young children. The most up-to-date science has demonstrated the aluminum, which is a neurotoxin, collects in the brain after it is injected. With these safety considerations in mind, it would be unwise and unethical to restrict an individual's right to refuse a 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 vaccine.

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.

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose SB 163 and SB 156.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]