A few years ago in the Houston Chronicle, State Representative Sarah Davis shared her views on the role of government in health care:
As a proud Republican, I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
Personal freedom and limited government are the foundation of my political philosophy. I believe the proper role of government is to provide only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
The government, she insisted, has no business “sticking its reach into the doctor’s office.”
So why is she so in favor of the government meddling in the matter of vaccines? As Texans for Vaccine Choice has noted, “Many of Representative Davis’ bills have caused significant concern for those who believe these medical decisions are best left in the hands of parents and their doctors.” Among her latest filings:
- HB 97, which would allow children to consent to their own vaccination “for cancer prevention or treatment,” presumably despite their parents’ wishes.
- HB 107, which would require the Department of State Health Services to submit annual reports on HPV immunization rates.
- HB 120, which “would change the allowable vaccine exemption from reasons ‘of conscience’ to ‘nonmedical’ reasons,” implying that any view other than the government-approved conventional wisdom is neither scientific nor medically sound, despite evidence to the contrary.
- HB 126, which would require parents to take an online course covering the CDC stance on vaccination but nothing, it seems, about its risks.
But wait! There’s more!
State Representative Donna Howard has also weighed in with a couple of bills of her own – one (HB 241) that would require physician counseling before opting out of vaccines; another (HB 243) that would require opting out of the state immunization registry rather than opting in.
It’s bills like these that pave the way toward draconian measures like California’s SB 277. Yet you’ve got to wonder why they’re being proposed at all. Yes, exemptions based on conscience have risen a lot. Even so, Texas still has one of the highest rates of childhood vaccination in the country.
And we feel exemptions must be protected – whether from following the mandated schedule to a T or from vaccines all together. Dr. Mercola put it well in an article he published late last year, after our state vaccination battles were rather suddenly thrust into the national limelight:
It’s incredibly important that people retain the right to choose what is, or is not, injected into their bodies. The fact is, vaccines are tolerated by some people and devastating to others and doctors cannot predict who will be harmed.
Most would agree that in the case of medical care, one size does not fit all. But in the case of vaccinations, public health officials prescribe the exact same number and timing of vaccinations for every child without taking into account biological differences between children.
At bottom, it’s a matter of informed consent, which the AMA Code of Medical Ethics assures is a fundamental right.
We’ve discussed this at length before, so we’ll just point you toward the relevant posts rather than rehash every point about why vaccination as its currently practiced makes no sense within a biological medical paradigm. Those points are important, but they’re also tangential to the bottom line: parental rights need to be respected.
And legislating “health” is the antithesis of that. As Jackie Schlegel, the director of Texans for Vaccine Choice” told KERA News,
“Our stance is that these are personal and private decisions that are best left that way,” Schlegel says. “Texas has a long history of supporting parental rights and vaccine choice. We are here to maintain that.”
To help in this fight for health freedom, connect with Texans for Vaccine Choice.