California Parents Flood School Board Meeting – Demand Parental Rights Sanctuary Regarding Vaccines and Sex Education

This week the Murrieta Unified School District in Southern California saw hundreds of parents turn out for a school board meeting to protest the loss of parental rights when it comes to the issue of mandatory vaccines and the sexualization in sex education of their children without parental approval. They brought a proposal to make their community a "sanctuary city for parental rights," claiming that if illegal immigration can be protected by a sanctuary status, then so can parental rights. Reporter Michelle Mears was present, and published a report at the California Globe. "Hundreds of residents in a Southern California community swarmed a school board meeting Thursday night to speak out about the loss of parental rights in schools. Anxious parents, many with children in tow, students, pastors and doctors demanded the Murrieta Unified School District become the first sanctuary city for parental rights in California. For two hours people waited to speak out on the action item titled, 'To consider Proposal by Community Member to Become a Sanctuary School District.” Those in favor of the sanctuary status understood the trustees could not change the laws set by the state. However, their argument is, if illegal immigration can be protected by a sanctuary status then so can parental rights.' One of the highlights of the night was a reading of an affidavit by a nurse known on Facebook as "Sandra RN." Police attempted to block her efforts and remove her from the room, but when she stood up for her rights as she was being filmed, police backed down and allowed her to speak.

American Medical Association Advice: Mature 12-Year-Olds Can Consent to Vaccination Without Parents

At the recently concluded annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) in Chicago, AMA delegates adopted a doozy of a new policy. The powerful trade group agreed to develop model legislation that pressures state legislatures into allowing minors to “override refusenik parents on vaccination.” In 2000, the Supreme Court reasserted the fundamental right of parents to oversee the care, custody and control of their children, a right recognized by states until children reach age 18. Where vaccines are concerned, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act—passed in 1986—legally requires health care providers to distribute vaccine information materials to the parent or legal guardian of any child to whom the provider intends to administer a vaccine “prior to the administration of such vaccine” [emphasis added]. Does it trouble the AMA that its pronouncement goes against legal precedent as well as social custom? Apparently unconcerned about “chipping away at parental rights,” AMA representatives are gung-ho about the organization’s new policy position. Not only do they want minors as young as 12 to be able to consent to vaccination regardless of their parents’ “flawed beliefs”—while still expecting parents to pay for the vaccines—they also believe that doctors should be the ones declaring a child “mature enough” to consent to vaccination. A question that anyone familiar with the AMA’s history should be asking is, why would we trust the AMA to make such vital decisions in parents’ stead?

Incentivizing Pediatricians to Be Vaccine Bullies

It is quite common for pediatricians (and family doctors) to encounter parents who refuse one or more infant vaccines, most often due to safety concerns. These concerns also mean that pediatricians frequently get requests to modify or delay the vaccine schedule—nearly three-fifths (58%) of pediatricians reported such requests in a 2014 AAP survey. Rather than recognize the validity of parents’ safety concerns or admit to their own ambivalence about some of the newer vaccines, many pediatricians—nearly two in five according to some estimates—choose to boot uncooperative families out of their practice. A recent Medscape survey indicates that one of the main things that pediatricians dislike about their job is “dealing with difficult patients.” However, when pediatricians dismiss families whose only crime is the desire to make informed and individualized health care decisions on behalf of their children, the doctors are doing more than just unprofessionally dumping “difficult” patients—they also are protecting their bottom line. Dr. Bob Sears confirms that HMO plans use incentive practices, conducting year-end chart reviews and awarding large bonuses to pediatric practices that score well. Dr. Sears explains: “This bonus varies depending on the number of patients the doctor sees. One of the requirements for a patient’s chart to pass the test is that they are fully vaccinated. […] Such incentives…end up forcing a doctor to consider the financial implications of accepting patients who even just want to opt out of one vaccine. …Maybe a few such families wouldn’t make them fail the chart reviews, but if they have too many, there goes their year-end bonus.”

Law Professor Attacks Homeschoolers – Believes State Should Choose Parents for Babies

A law professor at the oldest law school in the nation believes that there is no inherent right to parent one's own children. In an interview for CRTV about homeschooling, Professor James G. Dwyer told syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin that: "The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws." An investigation into Dwyer's writings and history reveals that this alarming statement was not an exaggerated statement taken out of context or misrepresented by a conservative journalist. Instead, the statement appears to be a foundational core belief held by a man who formerly worked in New York state family courts as a Law Guardian, which is the equivalent of a Guardian ad Litem. Dwyer's writings now influences policy within the family court system. Dwyer argues: "Courts should recognize that newborn babies, much more clearly than birth parents, have fundamental interests at stake in the state's selection of legal parents and, therefore, a much stronger claim to constitutional protection."

California Bill SB18 Wants Authority to Enter Homes to Ensure Parents Comply with State Mandates for Child Care

As we have continued to see increased cases of medical kidnapping and aggressive overreach of the medical system and the marriage of scientific opinion to laws in the United States, parents in California may be seeing a trend first hand that is going to be played out in the rest of the nation. Especially since 134 vaccine mandates have been introduced in this legislative session, indicating the trend for political mandates of your child’s standard of care is nowhere near slowing down. Many have speculated that SB18 is a part of Agenda 21 and Healthy People 2020 -- U.N. and U.S.-based initiatives, respectively, that are designed to corral populations into the inner cities and enforce a standard of care across the board that will implement controls that enable governments to manage portions of the population based on their standards and not the choices of the individual.

Will Refusing Vaccines Soon Lead to CPS Kidnapping Your Children for “Medical Neglect”?

Amidst the ever changing, controversial white waters of vaccine safety, parents who choose natural immunity are being targeted by certain members of the medical, legal and public health communities as being guilty of medical neglect. As readers of Health Impact News' MedicalKidnap.com website are fully aware, "medical neglect" is a broad term frequently used against parents who dare to disagree with doctors over the healthcare of their children, and can result in Child Protective Services (CPS) taking the children away from their families by force. The latest example of this usurping of parental rights, which is being pushed and orchestrated by vaccine extremists who insist on pushing a one-size-fits-all approach to immunity, appears in the February edition of ​the ​American Journal of Public​ Health, in an article entitled "Parental Refusal of Childhood Vaccines and Medical Neglect Laws.” The paper, authored by Efthimios Parasidis, JD, M.BE, and Douglas J. Opel, MD, MPH, sets out to examine court cases where vaccine refusal is categorized as "medical neglect" under child welfare laws.