more: How to Win in Washington State (re: SB5005)

[Guest guest]

From: " Dawn " <prove@...>

shared with permission

The Senate and House versions of SB5005 need to conferenced to resolve

language differences. We can still oppose the bill in conference

committee asking that the physician signature requirement be stripped out

(long shot but very viable option – how we got conscientious exemption

passed in TX. ) These strategies will be laid out on the portal

soon as soon as we know what the legislature is going to do with

resolving the differences. Different constitutionality arguments

can be made if they keep the language amended on to the bill in the House

than if they strip that off and keep the original language from the

senate (which is what Alan did such a nice job outlining). The

House version of SB5005 has even more problems since it gives

preferential treatment to some religions over others.

Dawn

NVICAdvocacy.org

From: Sheri Nakken

[

mailto:vaccinedangers@...]

Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 9:05 PM

Recipient list suppressed:

Subject: How to Win in Washington State (re: SB5005)

From: " lawpapa23 " <attorney@...>

WA residents have 2 options: Challenge the new law in court, or get the

legislature to repeal the law. The bottom line is, the new law is

unconstitutional. If that message is properly communicated, either one or

both of these options could and should be successful.

I've explained in articles why SB5005 is unconstitutional. This

explanation needs to be taken to representatives--in person if at all

possible (my experience is that they don't read letters or emails)--and

perhaps discussed with WA attorneys who might be willing to take such a

case. See these articles:

http://www.naturalnews.com/031450_vaccine_exemptions.html

http://libertynewsradio.com/wire/articles15/2011//00255_Proposed_Washington_State_Vaccine_Exemption_Law_is_Unconstitutional_154631.php

I didn't recall the bill requiring membership in an organized

religion, but if that's the case, see the first article above about a

similar NJ bill on that point. I've got another article coming out with

Natural News that goes into more depth on that, so check back there in

the near future.

Let me know how I can be of any further help!

Alan , JD

www.vaccinerights.com

www.pandemicresponseproject.com

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 March 25 & April 1

[Guest guest]

From: " Dawn " <prove@...>

shared with permission

The Senate and House versions of SB5005 need to conferenced to resolve

language differences. We can still oppose the bill in conference

committee asking that the physician signature requirement be stripped out

(long shot but very viable option – how we got conscientious exemption

passed in TX. ) These strategies will be laid out on the portal

soon as soon as we know what the legislature is going to do with

resolving the differences. Different constitutionality arguments

can be made if they keep the language amended on to the bill in the House

than if they strip that off and keep the original language from the

senate (which is what Alan did such a nice job outlining). The

House version of SB5005 has even more problems since it gives

preferential treatment to some religions over others.

Dawn

NVICAdvocacy.org

From: Sheri Nakken

[

mailto:vaccinedangers@...]

Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 9:05 PM

Recipient list suppressed:

Subject: How to Win in Washington State (re: SB5005)

From: " lawpapa23 " <attorney@...>

WA residents have 2 options: Challenge the new law in court, or get the

legislature to repeal the law. The bottom line is, the new law is

unconstitutional. If that message is properly communicated, either one or

both of these options could and should be successful.

I've explained in articles why SB5005 is unconstitutional. This

explanation needs to be taken to representatives--in person if at all

possible (my experience is that they don't read letters or emails)--and

perhaps discussed with WA attorneys who might be willing to take such a

case. See these articles:

http://www.naturalnews.com/031450_vaccine_exemptions.html

http://libertynewsradio.com/wire/articles15/2011//00255_Proposed_Washington_State_Vaccine_Exemption_Law_is_Unconstitutional_154631.php

I didn't recall the bill requiring membership in an organized

religion, but if that's the case, see the first article above about a

similar NJ bill on that point. I've got another article coming out with

Natural News that goes into more depth on that, so check back there in

the near future.

Let me know how I can be of any further help!

Alan , JD

www.vaccinerights.com

www.pandemicresponseproject.com

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 March 25 & April 1