CRITICAL: HOW TO DEFEAT SB 5005

[Guest guest]

What's left now is to get the governor to refuse to sign the bill into law. To

do that, we need to convince her that the bill is DOA, that if enacted, it will

be stricken because it is unconstitutional. You can't just claim that it's

unconstitutional, you have to provide legal authority proving that it's

unconstitutional. This letter does that:

http://www.vaccinerights.com/pdf/SB5005AttorneyLetter.pdf

It cites state and federal legal precedent where states vaccine religious

exemptions law were held by the courts to be unconstitutional because they

required church membership. So, Washington citizens need to flood the governor's

office with faxes of this letter, with a brief cover letter stating that they

are opposed to the bill for the reasons stated in the attached letter, to get

her to refuse to sign the bill into law.

The text of the letter is below. Please cross-post to maximize this letter's

effect.

Alan , JD

www.vaccinerights.com

www.pandemicresponseproject.com

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

April 1, 2011

Governor Gregoire

Office of the Governor

PO Box 40002

Olympia, WA 98504-0002

Fax: 360-753-4110

Re: ESB 5005, HB 1015, Concerning exemption from immunization

Dear Governor Gregiore,

I am writing at the request of, and on behalf of, citizens of Washington

regarding the above-cited bill that was recently passed both the state House and

Senate. The problem is that both the original and final versions of the bill

have serious Constitutional flaws, as explained below. For these reasons, and on

behalf of the citizens of Washington, I respectfully request that you exercise

your authority to prevent this bill from becoming law.

Specifically, the latest version of SB 5005, approved by the House, states, in

relevant part:

© Any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to

the child who exempts the child due to religious beliefs pursuant to subsection

(1)( of this section is not required to have the form provided for in (a) of

this subsection signed by a health care practitioner if the parent or legal

guardian demonstrates membership in a religious body or a church in which the

religious beliefs or teachings of the church preclude a health care practitioner

from providing medical treatment to the child.

[emphasis added]

New York federal courts have held that a vaccine religious exemption law

limiting the exemption to a " recognized religious organization . . . violates

both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution. " Sherr and Levy vs. Northport East-Northport Union

Free School District, 672 F. Supp. 81, 99 (E.D.N.Y., 1987). Another New York

federal court later added that the " beliefs need not be consistent with the

dogma of any organized religion, whether or not the plaintiffs belong to any

recognized religious organization. " Farina v. The Board of Education, 116 F.

Supp.2d 503, 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing Sherr, 672 F. Supp. at 91). More

recently, an Arkansas federal court also ruled that the state's religious

exemption clause requiring membership in an organized religion with tenets in

opposition to the immunization requirements violated the First and Fourteenth

Amendments. McCarthy v. Boozman, 212 F.Supp.2d 945 (W.D.Ark. 2002).

Religious exemption statutes requiring church membership were also ruled to be

unconstitutional in state courts in Massachusetts, Dalli v. Board of Education,

358 Mass. 753, 267 N.E.2d 219 (1971), and in land in v. State, 294 Md.

370, 451 A.2d 107 (1982).

The former version of SB 5005 required persons exercising a religious exemption

to immunizations to have an exemption form signed by a healthcare practitioner.

However, federal courts have held that the First Amendment requires only that

the belief be religious in nature and sincerely held, see, e.g., Sherr and Levy

vs. Northport East-Northport Union Free School District, 672 F. Supp. 81, 98

(E.D.N.Y., 1987), Mason v. General Brown Cent. School Dist., 851 F.2d 47 (2nd

Cir. 1988), and v. Sobel, 710 F. Supp. 506, (S.D.N.Y. 1989). So, the

earlier version of the bill which added an additional requirement, which

requirement was removed in a subsequent version of the bill, violated the First

Amendment as well.

Given the above, it is extremely likely that SB 5005/HB 1015 will not withstand

a Constitutional challenge. Furthermore, given the substantial opposition to

this bill, such a challenge is all but inevitable, and if the new law is ruled

to be unconstitutional, those who supported this bill could suffer a loss of

credibility accordingly. I therefore respectfully request that you exercise your

authority to prevent this bill from being enacted into law.

Sincerely Yours,

Alan , Esq.

NC State Bar No. 30436