Protect Children By Preserving Parental Rights
- The American Medical Association (AMA) spent over $20.4 million in 2018. It is a massive lobbying group whose objective is to maximize doctors’ earnings, interests, and protections under law. It has a track record of putting its interests before patients’ interests.
- In June 2019, the AMA adopted a policy to focus on pressing states to pass laws that remove the vaccine decision from parents of children as young as 12 for the purpose of overriding parental objections to vaccines.
- The AMA’s focus undermines natural rights and federal law which requires parents to be informed of vaccine information including risks and benefits prior to the distribution of a vaccine.
- The AMA’s focus undermines natural rights cemented into U.S. law by U.S. Supreme Court precedents affirming long-standing cultural norms of the primary role of parents in the custody, care, and nurture of their children.
- The AMA is a professional association whose agenda is to maximize its member physicians’ interests by shaping and directing health care policy, public health policy, and industry profitability. The parent’s interest is to make the best decisions for the individual child. The vaccine decision must remain with the child’s parents.
It Is Unconstitutional and Anti-American to Remove a Parent’s Right to Direct Healthcare Decisions for Our Children
The undersigned citizens of the United States respectfully request that state senators, state representatives and assembly people, and governors of the great states commit to affirming and upholding our medical, parental, and patient rights to make the decisions that affect the health and well-being of ourselves and our children.
The American Medical Association (AMA) voted in June 2019 to make it a mission to remove “the barrier” of “refusnik parents” to all children receiving all childhood vaccinations. It seeks to allow minor children as young as 12 years of age to provide their own consent in contravention of parental authority. Existing federal law—42 U.S. Code § 300aa–26—and Supreme Court precedent—Parham v. J.R. and Troxel v. Granville—make parental rights paramount to all other interests. This same federal statute establishes a compensation program for vaccine injury and death, plus unprecedented liability protection for vaccine manufacturers and the health care professionals who administer vaccines, because there is sufficient risk and established harm caused by vaccinations to justify and necessitate such a program.
Mandatory childhood vaccinations are used for preventative purposes in healthy children, not for emergency medical necessity, so such laws removing parental rights do not pass the “compelling state interest” test required to lawfully restrict a fundamental freedom. Any law that limits basic human rights—such as parental rights and informed consent to medical intervention—must undergo rigorous scrutiny and be shown to be strictly necessary, more than legitimate or important, narrowly focused on the cause of the problem, and the least restrictive of all methods. In the case of vaccines, passing strict scrutiny would require a public health emergency during a widespread “epidemic” and address the specific disease outbreak in question. It’s an overreach, and not strictly necessary, to remove parental knowledge and consent to all mandatory childhood vaccinations. The AMA is a professional association whose objective is to protect the interests of its member physicians. In the event of harm caused by healthcare decisions made in breach of parental authority, neither the AMA nor implicated physicians will be liable. The child’s parents will still be financially responsible (not to mention grievously disconsolate).
Parents, as the ultimate stakeholders, are the most invested in, and must continue to direct the decisions that determine, the child’s health and well-being. Removing parents from health decisions will jeopardize the child’s health and threaten the parent-child relationship and familial integrity. It is well established in natural, divine, and religious laws, and upheld in long-standing historical and cultural norms of the Western world that parents play the primary role in the upbringing and nurturance of our children. The alternative is medical authoritarianism and abhorrent to Americans. Please represent us and stand for the encompassing and inherent freedoms that define who we are.
For more on the Parental Rights Amendment: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/11/17/parental-rights-amendment-introduced-in-u-s-house/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/04/20/why-we-need-the-parental-rights-amendment/. It gives real life stories of children taken from their parents over medical decisions.
Lyme/MSIDS patients; unfortunately, understand this phenomenon all too well. Children infected with tick borne illness (TBI’s) are not believed and are told it’s all in their heads, https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/06/30/child-with-lymemsidspans-told-by-doctors-she-made-it-all-up/ , they are being lazy, or they just want attention. Parents are told they have Munchausen syndrome by proxy https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/11/sick-shaming-of-lymemsids-patients/ and are accused of child abuse https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/08/24/dutch-lyme-patients-accused-of-child-abuse/ .