Re: NJ: Bill would tighten shot requirements

[Guest guest]

Isn't that something? Explain your religion. What tyrants.

Ann

On Sat Jan 29th, 2011 8:57 PM MST Sheri Nakken wrote:

>they are wanting to make it that a parent has to explain their religious

reasons for exemption (just like NY it appears) Bad

>

>http://www.nj.com/sunbeam/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1296292809193520.xml & coll=9

><http://www.google.com/url?sa=X & q=http://www.nj.com/sunbeam/index.ssf%3F/base/n\

ews-7/1296292809193520.xml%26coll%3D9 & ct=ga & cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATAEOARAtLKS6gRIAVAA\

WABiAmVu & cd=jZkYcAAheRU & usg=AFQjCNEU1Okl8XHklrk7ZvScTWAjeRweqQ>Bill would

tighten shot requirements

>Today's Sunbeam - NJ.com

>The amended regulations permit a religious exemption from mandatory

immunization of school pupils based only upon a written statement by a student's

parent ...

>

>Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

>Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

>Vaccines - http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

>Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy Online/email courses -

next classes start February 4

[Guest guest]

Isn't that something? Explain your religion. What tyrants.

Ann

On Sat Jan 29th, 2011 8:57 PM MST Sheri Nakken wrote:

>they are wanting to make it that a parent has to explain their religious

reasons for exemption (just like NY it appears) Bad

>

>http://www.nj.com/sunbeam/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1296292809193520.xml & coll=9

><http://www.google.com/url?sa=X & q=http://www.nj.com/sunbeam/index.ssf%3F/base/n\

ews-7/1296292809193520.xml%26coll%3D9 & ct=ga & cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATAEOARAtLKS6gRIAVAA\

WABiAmVu & cd=jZkYcAAheRU & usg=AFQjCNEU1Okl8XHklrk7ZvScTWAjeRweqQ>Bill would

tighten shot requirements

>Today's Sunbeam - NJ.com

>The amended regulations permit a religious exemption from mandatory

immunization of school pupils based only upon a written statement by a student's

parent ...

>

>Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

>Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

>Vaccines - http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

>Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy Online/email courses -

next classes start February 4

[Guest guest]

What happened to our Constitutional Rights....Freedom of Religion?

Pam Pinto, AADP - Certified Nutrition Consultant

www.nutritiousanddeliciousfoods.blogspot.com--- On Sun, 1/30/11, Ann Brandenberger <mrs_bberger@...> wrote:

From: Ann Brandenberger <mrs_bberger@...>Subject: Re: NJ: Bill would tighten shot requirementsno-forced-vaccination Date: Sunday, January 30, 2011, 12:47 AM

Isn't that something? Explain your religion. What tyrants.AnnOn Sat Jan 29th, 2011 8:57 PM MST Sheri Nakken wrote:>they are wanting to make it that a parent has to explain their religious reasons for exemption (just like NY it appears) Bad>>http://www.nj.com/sunbeam/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1296292809193520.xml & coll=9><http://www.google.com/url?sa=X & q=http://www.nj.com/sunbeam/index.ssf%3F/base/news-7/1296292809193520.xml%26coll%3D9 & ct=ga & cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATAEOARAtLKS6gRIAVAAWABiAmVu & cd=jZkYcAAheRU & usg=AFQjCNEU1Okl8XHklrk7ZvScTWAjeRweqQ>Bill would tighten shot requirements>Today's Sunbeam - NJ.com>The amended regulations permit a religious exemption from mandatory immunization of school pupils based only upon a written statement by a student's parent ...>>Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath>Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA>Vaccines - http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com>Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes &

Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes start February 4

[Guest guest]

What happened to our Constitutional Rights....Freedom of Religion?

Pam Pinto, AADP - Certified Nutrition Consultant

www.nutritiousanddeliciousfoods.blogspot.com--- On Sun, 1/30/11, Ann Brandenberger <mrs_bberger@...> wrote:

From: Ann Brandenberger <mrs_bberger@...>Subject: Re: NJ: Bill would tighten shot requirementsno-forced-vaccination Date: Sunday, January 30, 2011, 12:47 AM

Isn't that something? Explain your religion. What tyrants.AnnOn Sat Jan 29th, 2011 8:57 PM MST Sheri Nakken wrote:>they are wanting to make it that a parent has to explain their religious reasons for exemption (just like NY it appears) Bad>>http://www.nj.com/sunbeam/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1296292809193520.xml & coll=9><http://www.google.com/url?sa=X & q=http://www.nj.com/sunbeam/index.ssf%3F/base/news-7/1296292809193520.xml%26coll%3D9 & ct=ga & cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATAEOARAtLKS6gRIAVAAWABiAmVu & cd=jZkYcAAheRU & usg=AFQjCNEU1Okl8XHklrk7ZvScTWAjeRweqQ>Bill would tighten shot requirements>Today's Sunbeam - NJ.com>The amended regulations permit a religious exemption from mandatory immunization of school pupils based only upon a written statement by a student's parent ...>>Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath>Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA>Vaccines - http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com>Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes &

Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes start February 4

[Guest guest]

Some comments on the Constitutionality aspects:

1. Often, what we think is or should be Constitutional isn't. For starters,

states are not required to offer a religious exemption at all. When they do, it

must fit within the federal Constitutional boundaries (First Amendment, " free

exercise " of religion). But we don't get to decide what those boundaries are.

That's determined in law--statutes, regulations, Constitutional provisions, and

mostly legal precedent. All of these have to be looked at, together with the

facts in any given situation, to determine what the rights are for that person

and situation. It is very risky to presume to know what our Constitutional

rights are (as most lay people assume that what they think should be their

rights are in fact their rights, and often, they are wrong). We should take care

to confirm or clarify what our Constitutional rights actually are before acting

on assumptions. People have lost exemption rights by failing to do this.

2. When asserting religious beliefs for legal purposes, we don't get to decide

what qualifies and what doesn't. That is determined by law. For example, if you

refer to adverse events, there is legal precedent that provides authority for

rejecting the exemption. We may not agree with that or like it, but that's the

current state of the law. So, references to toxicity are ill-advised when

writing vaccine religious exemption statements. Legally, that may not be a

legitimate religious reason for refusing vaccines. If we don't like that, we can

ask our state legislatures to enact laws providing for philosophical exemptions

(or perhaps to define 'religious' more broadly for our state).

3. From the state's point of view, it is critical to have an explanation of the

religious beliefs, so that they can weed out those who are falsely claiming

religious beliefs to get an exemption when there's no philosophical exemption.

We have no inherent right to refuse that, only an opportunity to oppose proposed

legislation that would add such a requirement. So, if you disagree, let your

legislators know!

4. Any situation requiring that you explain your religious beliefs is one to be

very careful of. There are pitfalls, and legal precedent that determines (to

some extent) what does and doesn't qualify. There are lots of websites and even

MD's telling people how to write these, but with the humblest of respect, these

people don't understand the law, and are giving advice that is a mixture of

accurate and inaccurate information in my experience. The best source for

support is an attorney who has experience with exemptions and waivers, as they

will know through that experience and formal legal training and research what is

most likely to work, and what to avoid that could undermine the exemption claim.

For example, the quickest way to lose an exemption is to copy a statement off of

the Internet--there is legal precedent that says copying makes it insincere, and

that may be grounds for rejecting the exemption. So, statements need to be

unique to each person or family, and designed to include what is necessary and

to exclude what can undermine the exemption.

Not intended to be legal advice; for educational purposes only.

Alan , J.D.

www.vaccinerights.com

www.pandemicresponseproject.com

>

> What happened to our Constitutional Rights....Freedom of Religion?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Some comments on the Constitutionality aspects:

1. Often, what we think is or should be Constitutional isn't. For starters,

states are not required to offer a religious exemption at all. When they do, it

must fit within the federal Constitutional boundaries (First Amendment, " free

exercise " of religion). But we don't get to decide what those boundaries are.

That's determined in law--statutes, regulations, Constitutional provisions, and

mostly legal precedent. All of these have to be looked at, together with the

facts in any given situation, to determine what the rights are for that person

and situation. It is very risky to presume to know what our Constitutional

rights are (as most lay people assume that what they think should be their

rights are in fact their rights, and often, they are wrong). We should take care

to confirm or clarify what our Constitutional rights actually are before acting

on assumptions. People have lost exemption rights by failing to do this.

2. When asserting religious beliefs for legal purposes, we don't get to decide

what qualifies and what doesn't. That is determined by law. For example, if you

refer to adverse events, there is legal precedent that provides authority for

rejecting the exemption. We may not agree with that or like it, but that's the

current state of the law. So, references to toxicity are ill-advised when

writing vaccine religious exemption statements. Legally, that may not be a

legitimate religious reason for refusing vaccines. If we don't like that, we can

ask our state legislatures to enact laws providing for philosophical exemptions

(or perhaps to define 'religious' more broadly for our state).

3. From the state's point of view, it is critical to have an explanation of the

religious beliefs, so that they can weed out those who are falsely claiming

religious beliefs to get an exemption when there's no philosophical exemption.

We have no inherent right to refuse that, only an opportunity to oppose proposed

legislation that would add such a requirement. So, if you disagree, let your

legislators know!

4. Any situation requiring that you explain your religious beliefs is one to be

very careful of. There are pitfalls, and legal precedent that determines (to

some extent) what does and doesn't qualify. There are lots of websites and even

MD's telling people how to write these, but with the humblest of respect, these

people don't understand the law, and are giving advice that is a mixture of

accurate and inaccurate information in my experience. The best source for

support is an attorney who has experience with exemptions and waivers, as they

will know through that experience and formal legal training and research what is

most likely to work, and what to avoid that could undermine the exemption claim.

For example, the quickest way to lose an exemption is to copy a statement off of

the Internet--there is legal precedent that says copying makes it insincere, and

that may be grounds for rejecting the exemption. So, statements need to be

unique to each person or family, and designed to include what is necessary and

to exclude what can undermine the exemption.

Not intended to be legal advice; for educational purposes only.

Alan , J.D.

www.vaccinerights.com

www.pandemicresponseproject.com

>

> What happened to our Constitutional Rights....Freedom of Religion?

>

>

>