|
|
 |
| |
SB 439 HAS FOUR
DEVASTATING PROBLEMS
by Scott Woodruff, staff attorney
Home School Legal Defense Association
We must exert every effort to prevent this bill from
becoming law
unless these problems are resolved. Two of the vaccines
mentioned in the bill--rubella and chicken pox--are
manufactured using human cells cultured from the living
tissue of aborted babies. Compelling parents to immunize
their children with such vaccines in violation of their most
deeply held moral and religious convictions is profoundly
troubling and simply unconscionable in a society that
strives to respect the consciences of others.
1. PROBLEM: The bill strips away a parent's right to
defend their
decision to not immunize based on "sufficient reason."
The bill
replaces it with a narrow religious exemption that is
glaringly
unconstitutional and will be struck down-- just as a
similarly
unconstitutional exemption was struck down in Arkansas. It
is
unconstitutional because it benefits only persons of certain
religions--those religions which acknowledge clergy or
religious
representatives. It discriminate against persons of other
religions
since they cannot get the exemption because they have no
acknowledged clergy or religious representative to vouch for
them.
--- SOLUTION: Make the exemption approximately as
broad as the current "sufficient reason" defense by making
it apply equally to convictions based on either religious or
moral objections, and remove the language that discriminates
against the religion of some persons.
--- TECHNICAL: In subsection (c) of WV Code 16-3-4
(in SB 439), delete "attested to by a member of the clergy
or religious representative who is authorized to perform
marriages in the state pursuant to the provisions of article
two, chapter forty-eight of this code." In the phrase
"religious beliefs", after the word "religious" and before
the word "beliefs", add "or moral."
2. PROBLEM: The bill strips a family doctor of his
ability to use his own good judgement when granting a
medical exemption, and instead restricts him to an exemption
justified by "commonly accepted practices." If a doctor
has a license to practice, he is fit to render a sound
medical decision regarding an exemption. Limiting him to
"commonly accepted practices" handcuffs him from using his
best professional judgement as to what is best for the
unique, individual patient. One size does not fit all in
medical care.
--- SOLUTION: Remove the "commonly accepted
practices" constraint so
each doctor can do what is best for each individual patient.
--- TECHNICAL: In subsection (c), delete the phrase,
"consistent with commonly accepted practices."
3. PROBLEM: The bill declares that "The state has a
compelling
interest in protecting the health of all citizens of this
state,
especially our children," but fails to recognize a parent's
own
fundamental right to direct the health care of his child.
Recognizing the state's interest and not the parent's
minimizes the historic rights parents have to make sound
health care decisions for their children. Governments were
created to protect rights, according to the Declaration of
Independence. The bill fails this test. It inflates the
state's power and minimizes the parents' fundamental rights.
Some judges could view this language as an invitation to
construe the bill harshly against the historic, fundamental
rights of parents.
--- SOLUTION: Remove the "compelling interest"
sentence.
--- TECHNICAL: In subsection (b), delete the first
sentence.
4. PROBLEM: The bill strips judges of the ability to
assess a fine
less than $100.00. Under current law, the minimum fine
upon conviction is $10. A judge should have discretion to
assess a small fine if he believes that is appropriate in
his professional judgment. A ten-fold increase in the
minimum penalty is not justified, especially since the
maximum penalty is simultaneously being raised ten-fold to
$500.00.
--- SOLUTION: Allow judges to assess a fine as low
as $20.00 if they believe that is appropriate.
--- TECHNICAL: In subsection (j), delete "one
hundred dollars" and
insert "twenty dollars."
Also see
HSLDA's action alert. |
|
|
 |
