E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER

Vienna, Virginia                                    http://www.nvic.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    UNITED WAY/COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN

                 #9119

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982.”

==========================================================

NVIC Note: Here is an update from Dawn Richardson at PROVE on the bill in Texas to repeal the conscientious belief exemption.

Dear Texas PROVE members,

Hooray for Texas State Representative Arlene Wohlgemuth for defending our new conscientious exemption law in the media! We all are incredibly grateful for her honest common sense defense of parental rights and recognition that parental rights and public health don’t have to compete with each other - they can co-exist as many other states have already shown us! Her excellent opinion piece was published in today’s San Antonio newspaper along the side of a hysterical anti-informed consent pro-forced immunization commentary by a doctor that has no clue what parents are suffering with regards to vaccine reactions due to today’s jam packed vaccine schedule.

 What doctors like this one fail to understand is that public health is far more than the absence of infectious disease - it is about a society of healthy individuals - and vaccines for some children are just plain devastating. The pharmaceutical and medical trade association alliance refuses to acknowledge the harm vaccines pose for far more children than “1

in a million.”   Will epidemics rage?  It is highly unlikely, but one thing

is for certain - we will continue to demand that doctors recognize the worth of the life of every child and not put more importance on the life of a child infected with a disease while claiming vaccine injuries do not occur or are just collateral damage.

Thank you, Dawn Richardson

  http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=130&xlc=1025924

 Comment: Change in child vaccination law: step forward or step back?

By Arlene Wohlgemuth   San Antonio Express-News       Web Posted :

07/16/2003 12:00 AM

AUSTIN - Some Texas newspapers recently have reported critically and editorialized against a recent change in the state’s vaccination law. Although the change originated in the Texas Senate and not in the House where I am a member, I generally agreed with the shift in state policy reaffirming parents’ right to control and supervise the health care of their child.

 I’m disappointed that some have chosen to overreact with dire predications

of horror, and I’d like to set the record straight.   The controversy

surrounds a parent’s right to refuse to have his or her child immunized. It should be pointed out that this is not a new issue. Under current state law, parents may refuse to have their child immunized, either for religious

reasons or because of a medical necessity.   While the new law expands the

exemptions to include parents who strongly believe that certain immunizations pose a significant health risk to their children, the Legislature added protections in the final version of the bill that are actually more stringent than current law regarding this so-called conscientious objector provision.

 Under the old law, a parent could exempt a child by belonging to or claiming to believe in the “tenets and practices of a recognized religious organization.” Pretty vague language, right? Individuals claiming such an exemption could do so literally on the first day of school or day care whether the parent was an actual practitioner of the religion cited or not. This vague language was too ambiguous to be an effective policy that could be enforced consistently by schools, child-care providers and others who care for our children.

 Under the new bill, which goes into effect Sept. 1, to obtain an exemption for conscientious objection, a parent must first request in writing a state-designed form from the Texas Department of Health, sign the affidavit, and have it notarized 90 days before the time it is submitted to a school,

day care or other entity.   The point is that getting an exemption from

immunization will now be more complicated, not less. These measures are to ensure that a waiver be granted only to parents who strongly feel that it is

not in the best interest of their child to be immunized.   Ironically, many

children now fail to get immunized because their parents simply fail to have them vaccinated, not because their parents seek an exemption.

 In times of public health disasters or epidemics, non-vaccinated children can be refused admission to schools and day care facilities. But more significantly under the new law, to protect the public health from an outbreak of a communicable disease the commissioner of health may compel individuals to reveal their vaccine status and, if they are not vaccinated, quarantine them. That’s pretty tough medicine that demonstrates the state’s commitment to protecting the overall public health.

 I recognize this change in state policy is hitting a large portion of the public and Texas medical community for the first time through newspaper reports and word-of-mouth. I have heard from parents who appreciate the reaffirmation of their rights and doctors who are alarmed by any

modification of the conscientious objector provision.   Sadly, Texas has

consistently ranked near the bottom of childhood immunizations (we now rank 42nd). Some fear this policy will negatively affect our rate further, even though 18 other states have conscientious objector status, and 14 of them

rank higher than Texas, according to a 2001 study.   Nonsense!

It’s time for parents and doctors to work together to increase our collective immunization rates while being respectful of everyone’s desire and rights.  I intend to monitor this change very carefully over the next several years to ensure that it is being implemented fairly and in a manner that protects the public without trampling on the rights of parents. Our children and the public deserve no less.

  Arlene Wohlgemuth, R-Burleson, is a member of the Texas House and the House Human Services and Appropriations committees.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=130&xlc=1025927

 Comment: Horrible epidemics of the past could return, thanks to legislators.

  By Dr. Daniel McNeel Lane       Web Posted : 07/16/2003 12:00 AM

The Texas Legislature would not have been able to make childhood

vaccinations voluntary if it weren’t for the effects of time.   The United

States has not suffered a major epidemic of a childhood infection since the 1960s. Because it’s been several decades, there are few pediatricians still around who worked in a major medical center during one of those epidemics.

 My pediatric training began in the early 1960s when childhood infections

still occurred - and they could happen again.   Therefore, a few words about

those days might be of interest. I will relate my experiences in the order that childhood immunizations are given.  First, diphtheria was still present. One of my worst memories as a medical student on the pediatric service was of two 3-year-old girls who died on consecutive nights because of occlusion of the tracheal - or windpipe - opening of diphtheritic membrane.  Second, pertussis in infants less than 6 months old was a disaster. If an infant survived whooping cough, it wasn’t uncommon for the child to remain hospitalized for two or three months, because the whooping persisted.  Third, tetanus was still seen in unimmunized children with minor skin injuries. These injuries developed a local infection from the tetanus bacteria. The few who were fortunate enough to survive required a long stay

in the hospital to recover.   Fourth, mumps was uncommon, but it was still

seen at regular intervals.

Complications in children, especially males, who got mumps, were rare, but when they occurred, they were extremely serious and caused a lifetime disability in far too many.  Fifth, by far the worst epidemics were because of measles. The last major measles epidemic occurred in 1963, when I was pediatric resident at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. More than 600,000 American children had measles that year, and it seemed like most of them were in Dallas.  Children’s clinics would see 300 to 400 cases of measles daily. One Sunday when I was on call at Parkland, our group of pediatric

residents was proud to have seen 140 cases of measles - a record.   The next

Sunday, the pediatricians on call saw 180 cases of measles, breaking our record.  Sixth, rubella (German measles) last occurred in epidemic form in 1965-66 and caused relatively few complications, except in infants whose mothers had rubella during early pregnancy. A new generation of deaf children followed that rubella epidemic.

Seventh, polio was a major reason why swimming pools were closed, especially in San Antonio. Fortunately, we saw few cases of polio in those days, except in children who had not been immunized. Paralytic polio in those children caused the same problems as it did before immunization was available.  Polio is a good example of the efforts made by physicians and drug companies to make immunization of children as safe as possible. For decades, the oral polio vaccine was given to infants with great success in preventing

paralysis.   However, approximately eight polio cases a year occurred

because of the oral polio vaccine, which is a live vaccine. That was too many, so within the past few years the Salk vaccine (a killed virus) has

replaced the oral polio vaccine.   That change would not have been possible

if it weren’t for extensive studies performed on polio vaccines.  In the opinion of this pediatrician, the failure of parents to have their children immunized against major infectious diseases is irresponsible at best, no matter their political or religious views.

If parents choose not to have their child immunized and the child develops a preventable infection with complications, the parents have no one to blame but themselves.  Members of the Texas Legislature who passed the voluntary immunization legislation should also be held responsible if a major epidemic of a preventable infection occurs again in the state.  Not immunizing children in the 21st century is a step back into the 19th - not the 20th - century.

 Dr. Daniel McNeel Lane is a native of San Antonio and a board-certified pediatrician. He is now semi-retired.

=============================================

News@nvic.org is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations.  Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed

consent rights http://www.nvic.org

Become a member and support NVIC’s work  https://www.909shot.com/order.htm

To sign up for a free e-mail subscription http://www.nvic.org/emaillist.htm

NVIC is funded through individual membership donations and does not receive government funding. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co-founder.

NOTE: This is not an interactive e-mail list. Please do not respond to messages.