Conscience Coalition’s Study Assignment for
Lawmakers Pushing Health Care Mandates that Violate Conscience Rights
1. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA): the federal law that gave vaccine makers immunity from liability for damages arising from vaccine-related injuries and deaths that result from “unavoidable” side effects; and created a compensation program for the vaccine injuries and deaths. California Rep. Henry Waxman sponsored this Act because drug companies threatened to stop making vaccines if they had to continue to face the massive increase in lawsuits from the parents of tens of thousands of victims they were creating.
2. The legislative report that accompanied the NCVIA: the report that explains congressional intent.
3. The 2011 Supreme Court ruling on Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: the decision that held that the NCVIA preempts/prevents all design-defect claims against vaccine makers brought by the victims of vaccine injuries and deaths; suggests that a vaccine’s design is not open to question; and establishes the “unavoidability” of vaccine injuries and deaths as a “complete defense.”
4. The 2011 Dissent by Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: the opinion that the legislative report confirms that “unavoidable” side effects are created by vaccines that “in the present state of human skill and knowledge cannot be made safe.”
They vigorously defended the rights of vaccine victims and believed that Waxman’s Act intended to make it easier for them to seek and secure justice. Sotomayor said that “Congress intended to leave the courthouse doors open for children who have suffered severe injuries from defectively designed vaccines.”
5. The ICAN lawsuits against the National Institutes of Health and Health Resources and Services Administration, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services. These lawsuits show that the federal government has not upheld the law or the intention of the 1986 NCVIA.
Further, they should then read about the Hippocratic Oath, one of the oldest binding documents in history; and informed consent, which the AMA describes as “fundamental in both ethics and law.”
Reading and understanding all the above, every lawmaker should be asked:
* Will you act in accordance with the law of the land, the acknowledgments contained in the Supreme Court ruling and the Sotomayor/RBG dissent, the Hippocratic Oath and informed consent? Or will you blatantly disregard them by voting with your leadership and the corrupting influence of the special interests they are serving?
* Will you protect the doctor-patient relationship and the ability of doctors to grant exemptions to children they know should not get certain vaccines? Or force doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath?
* Will you protect informed consent? Or force parents to inject their children even after reading and understanding the federally mandated warnings of the unavoidable risks of vaccine injuries and deaths?
* Will you vote to kill SB 276? Or to injure and kill even more children? There is no public health emergency here. Lawmakers should put good policy and governance above politics, leave SB 276 in suspense and take the time to properly study and fully understand all the above.