Any parent or guardian who refuses to permit his or her child to be immunized against the diseases enumerated in subsection (c) of this section, or who cannot give satisfactory proof that the child or person has been so immunized or who falsifies a child's immunization record is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars or more than five hundred dollars.

Senator Prezioso has publically reassured homeschooling parents that the bill only applies to children attending school and does not threaten homeschoolers.  The attorney for the Senate HHR committee, Ray Ratliff, has given a verbal opinion that this language does not apply to homeschoolers.  According to a homeschooling activist who talked to him in Charleston,

"[he] said that the bill applies only to the schools covered by the chapter of the code in which it is written.   Students who are "privately
schooled by their parents [homeschooled] (we verified that that's what was meant)" would not be affected. We also asked about the wording that "Any parent or guardian...." and again were told it applied to only parents of students in public or private schools which are the schools covered by this chapter of the Code."

However, Homeschooling parents must not be placed at the mercy of the verbal interpretation of politicians and their attorneys.  The Home School Legal Defense Association believes "This bill affects all parents, regardless of how they choose to educate their children."  HSLDA maintains that both homeschooling and schooling parents remain very much threatened by this bill, which removes the past protection of "sufficient reason why any or all immunizations should not be done." 

I have outlined the issues as explained to me by Scott Woodruff, the attorney for HSLDA.

1.  "Any parent" who does not vaccinate (subsection j).  HSLDA believes a judge could interpret "any parent" to mean any parent, regardless of method of schooling.  This law exists right now, and HSLDA believes homeschooling parents are already threatened by the law.  However, we have some protection from two things.  One, we have some protection because even home school parents could defend themselves by showing "sufficient reason."  Two, we have some protection because no judge has yet ruled whether home school parents are included in "any parent."  Judges are known to follow other agendas rather than the clear language of the law. 

2.  The new bill takes out the "sufficient reason" clause.  If the "sufficient reason" defense is stripped, a court could disregard even an excellent reason for not immunizing.  HSLDA believes all parents, homeschooling or not, will have less legal recourse to defend their decision not to vaccinate.  So we are not wrong to be very concerned about the possibility that homeschoolers who do not vaccinate can be charged with a crime.

3.  The bill MUST therefore be opposed.  So far, three attorneys WVVE has consulted agree the religious exemption we have right now is not worth the paper it is printed on.  It gives us nothing, in exchange for allowing them to expand their powers significantly.