Keep the Federal Government Out of State Public Health and Vaccine Law Making

My son was injured by the DPT vaccine in 1980 when he was two and a half years old because I wanted him to be able to join a half day program in northern Virginia where he could socialize with other children his age. But I was told he could not be part of that program and play with other children unless he got a fourth dose of DPT and oral polio vaccine. I did not know that Virginia public health law allowed a religious exemption to vaccination, just like 48 other state legislatures did at that time. 

Under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, a power that is not defined in the US Constitution as belonging to the federal government is reserved for the states, ¹ and so state legislatures have the constitutional authority to make public health laws governing residents of a state.²  That is why in America, there are 50 different types of vaccine laws and exemptions to public health laws. ³

Today there are four states – California, New York, Maine and Connecticut – where citizens have elected state representatives who have voted to repeal the religious belief exemption to vaccination over the past decade.

Calls for Federal Action to Override State Public Health Law Making

Now there are calls by some for the White House and US Attorney General and Congress to intervene in California, New York, Maine and Connecticut and to override the constitutional authority of those state legislatures to make vaccine laws, which may or may not include religious belief exemptions to vaccination. The argument is that those four states have unconstitutionally violated the First Amendment rights of religious families by denying their children a school education for refusing one or more state mandated vaccines, and that the solution is to use Presidential Executive Orders and lawsuits and federal legislation to force those states to re-write their public health laws, and punish institutions and medical care providers with financial penalties if they don’t include a religious exemption to vaccination for school attendance or grant unvaccinated individuals access to federally funded medical care. ⁴

At first, it sounds like a good idea to get the federal government involved in forcing those states to respect the religious beliefs of families, right? It sounds good until you take a closer look and understand what it really means to allow the federal government to interfere in what has always been a constitutional authority reserved for the states.

Our Representative Constitutional Republic Divides Power Between Federal Government and the States

Before I explain in more detail, remember this: America is not a pure democracy where the majority always rules and the rights of individuals and minorities can be diminished. The founders of the United States of America, who had escaped from oppressive hereditary monarchies ruled by kings and queens, knew that their main job in creating a Representative Constitutional Republic was to make sure they protected individual liberty and minority rights by preventing a powerful federal government from wielding unchecked authority over the entire population. They did that by creating a decentralized governmental structure that split power between the federal government and state governments, with city and county governments playing a role as well. ⁵

Those checks and balances are what saved us from a draconian federal government vaccine mandate that would have forced all Americans to get the lethal COVID-19 mRNA biological. We all remember when the last administration – for the first time – issued a federal vaccine mandate during the government’s disastrous pandemic response that applied to federal employees and all private employers with 100 or more workers. ^{6 7} Thousands lost their jobs for refusing to get the COVID shot, which has already racked up more than 1.6 million adverse event reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). ⁸

Even though federal health officials added the COVID shot to the CDC’s recommended childhood vaccine schedule, no state legislature voted to mandate it for school attendance. ⁹ That is because public health laws are state laws and the 50 state legislatures have the constitutional authority to create - or not create - public health laws that do or do not include vaccine mandates.

Why would we do anything to give more power to the federal government to dictate to 50 state governments what we do with our bodies and the bodies of our children?

No legal action should be taken to drive a religious vaccine exemption case to the US Supreme Court, where the current court majority supportive of vaccine mandates could reaffirm – and very likely strengthen – the cruel utilitarian rationale used in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) to deny more Americans the freedom to make voluntary decisions about vaccination, including for reasons of conscience or religious beliefs.

It is sad that the state legislatures in California, New York, Maine and Connecticut have voted to discriminate against Americans with sincerely held religious beliefs opposing vaccination. The only vaccine exemption allowed in those four states is a medical vaccine exemption, which is almost impossible to get because it is based on strict federal government guidelines.

NO Medical Exemption to Vaccination for YOU!

Over the past few decades, federal health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and medical trade groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, who are determined to recklessly implement one-size-fits-all vaccine policies, have so severely narrowed contraindications to vaccination that, today, almost no health condition qualifies for a medical exemption to vaccination. ¹⁰

• If you or your child are coming down with or recovering from a respiratory or gastrointestinal infection and have a fever or are taking antibiotics and want to delay getting vaccinated: No medical exemption for you.
• If your baby was born prematurely, weighs only five pounds, and you want to delay vaccination until your baby is older and stronger:  No medical exemption for your baby. 
• If you are a pregnant healthcare worker and don’t want to get a hepatitis B shot or flu shot because you have a personal and family history of autoimmunity:  No medical exemption for you. 
• If you or your child has suffered a fever over 105 degrees F, or a collapse or shock-like state, or a seizure, or persistent inconsolable crying for more than 3 hours after receiving a pertussis containing vaccine:  No medical exemption for you.
• If you or your child have a serious autoimmune disorder like lupus or rheumatoid arthritis:  No medical exemption for you.
• If you or your child have mild HIV infection:  No medical exemption for you.
• If you or your child have a neurological disorder like cerebral palsy, developmental delays or epilepsy:  No medical exemption for you.

When public health officials and doctors become dictators, the first casualty is your God given right to protect your body or the body of your child from harm. It is no wonder that more and more Americans are realizing the importance of electing and working with enlightened state legislators to defend the legal right to obey the certain judgement of conscience and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination without being punished for doing that.

We all agree that autonomy and the freedom to follow our conscience and exercise sincerely held religious beliefs must be protected. What we disagree about is how to go about doing that.

The National Vaccine Information Center is committed to defending states’ rights as provided for in the US Constitution because we know that is the surest way to protect liberty from the overreach of a too-powerful federal government.

Let’s review the history of how we got here, to a place where Americans are being deceived and coerced and punished for defending the legal right to make voluntary decisions about using a pharmaceutical product that carries a risk of injury or death, a risk that can be greater for some than others.

The Culture War Pitting Individual Liberty Against the Power of Government

You have to look no further than the culture wars that are tearing our nation and many nations apart, culture wars that have been going on for several centuries and are pitting those who believe the individual has a right to liberty which limits the power of government ¹¹ and those who believe that government must exercise power to restrict the liberty of individuals to achieve a greater good for society. ^{12 13} It is a classic struggle for power between the individual and the collective, the one versus the many.

Mandatory vaccination laws have become the tip of the spear in that culture war, which also involves a struggle between the authority of scientists and organized medicine to dictate behavior ¹⁴ versus the natural right to autonomy that gives the individual moral authority to engage in rational thinking ¹⁵ and exercise conscience ¹⁶ when making a benefit risk decision that involves harm to the body. ¹⁷ 

Seminal SCOTUS Ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) Upholds Mandatory Vaccination

What does this have to do with the current suggestion that the federal government should interfere in states that do not allow a religious exemption to vaccination? To answer that question, we have to examine a seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision made more than a century ago. In 1905, our nation’s highest court made a ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts based on a utilitarian rationale of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” of people, a ruling that has been upheld over the past 120 years in numerous state and federal court cases that challenged the denial of a religious exemption to vaccination. ^{18 19 20 21}

By the turn of the 20^th century, serious reactions to smallpox vaccination were becoming a topic of conversation among Americans being legally required to get one or more doses of the highly reactive vaccine. ^{22 23} Henning Jacobson, a Swedish immigrant and Lutheran pastor living in Massachusetts, objected to a public health law requiring him to get a second smallpox vaccination or pay a $5 fine. He said that he and his son had suffered severe reactions to previous smallpox vaccinations and he argued that smallpox vaccine ingredients were toxic and caused injury and even death, and that he was particularly susceptible to being harmed, which made mandatory re-vaccination an “assault upon his person” and a violation of the 14^th Amendment right to liberty and equal protection under the law.

The attorneys representing medical doctors persuaded judges in the state courts that Jacobson did not know what he was talking about, was in no danger, and ruled against him. Jacobson stubbornly refused to pay the $5 fine and appealed to the US Supreme Court, a mistake that saw eight of the nine judges, including the famous Oliver Wendall Holmes, make one of the most unethical and dangerous legal decisions in American jurisprudence.

SCOTUS Affirms Utilitarianism As Rule for Public Health Lawmaking

The tragic legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts is that the philosophy of utilitarianism has come to define public health law in the U.S. If your healthy unvaccinated child has been kicked out of school while sick vaccinated children are allowed to stay - or if you have been fired from your job because you said “no” to getting a flu or COVID shot  - look no further than Jacobson v. Massachusetts. If you have been denied a conscientious or religious belief exemption to vaccine mandates, look no further than Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

Unbelievably, the judges sitting on the Victorian era Supreme Court used bad logic, relied on old science and made the ridiculous assumption that doctors are infallible to give government the green light to force healthy Americans to risk their lives with a pharmaceutical product based on “common belief” rather than fact. Piously waving the utilitarian “greater good” flag, they threw individuals under the bus by throwing civil liberties out the door.

SCOTUS Also Affirms Constitutional Authority of States to Make Public Health Law Putting Restraints on Individual Freedoms

The only thing they got right was affirming the principle of federalism as defined in the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Making public health law was not defined in the Constitution as a federal power, so that power is reserved for the states.

In a split decision with one dissenting vote, the Court majority said that citizens do not have the right under the U.S. Constitution to be free at all times because - “the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute rights in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good.”

They said that state legislatures have the constitutional authority to enact compulsory vaccination laws and exercise police power to restrict or eliminate liberty during epidemics to “secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state.” Embracing a calculating utilitarian rationale, they said it is “the duty of the constituted authorities to keep in view the welfare, comfort, and safety of the many, and not permit the interest of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few.”

SCOTUS Proclaims Vaccination is Safe and Medical Doctors Are Infallible

The judges dismissed Jacobson’s concern that he and his son were genetically or otherwise biologically susceptible to suffering harm from the live virus smallpox vaccine, which can cause brain, heart and eye inflammation and progressive vaccinia and eczema vaccinatum, which produces smallpox-like open lesions all over the body and can lead to infection of close contacts with vaccine strain virus. ²⁴ Instead, the Supreme Court justices chose to elevate medical doctors to a deified status, making this ignorant statement implying that Pastor Jacobson had nothing to fear because medical doctors are infallible. The Court said:

   “The matured opinions of medical men everywhere, and the experience of mankind, as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe.”

Compulsory Vaccination Is Compared to Military Draft

 Comparing compulsory smallpox vaccination with the military draft in times of war, the judges declared that a citizen “may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense.”

Of course, today, most of the citizen soldiers being forced to “risk the chance of being shot” in America are babies in newborn nurseries and little children who want to go to school.

SCOTUS Rules Vaccine Law Can Be Based on “Common Belief,” Not Fact

Although the 1905 Supreme Court judges dismissed concerns about the safety of smallpox vaccine as completely unfounded, they were clearly uncomfortable about Jacobson’s contention that his life was on the line. Not once, but repeatedly, they returned to the knotty problem of individual risk only to ridicule Pastor Jacobson and point out that his uneducated opinion was no match for the “common knowledge” and expert opinion of medical doctors.

In fact, the judges went so far as to say that - even if Jacobson could prove medical experts were wrong about the safety of smallpox vaccination - states still have the constitutional power to enact laws based on majority opinion and “common belief” and not on truth or proven facts. They said:

   “A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts. The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive...for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not.”

I wonder how many legislators know that the 1905 Supreme Court ruling being used to justify eliminating exemptions from vaccine laws was based on the idea that “common belief” – not hard evidence - can rule the day?

The 1905 Supreme Court judges tried to defend their decision by explaining that if individuals like Jacobson were able to get exempted from vaccination, it would mean that:

   “Compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox; and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and its medical advisors that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.”

And there it is again. The Supreme Court told state representatives that they can make vaccine laws based on “deep and universal” beliefs about vaccination, especially beliefs held by medical doctors, but can ignore the deeply held beliefs of individuals with good reason to conclude they will be harmed by vaccination.

Other Courts Agree That Protecting the Public Health Trumps Exercise of Religious Beliefs

In more than 120 years of case law, again and again, US courts have upheld the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts and used it to deny religious exemption to vaccination. One of the most highly publicized cases denying religious exemption to vaccination was, Cude v. Arkansas in 1964. ²⁵  It involved a father of eight, Archie Cude, who was forced to surrender his children to Arkansas state officials to be given smallpox vaccine, even though he said it was against his Christian beliefs.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas used Jacobson v. Massachusetts (among other previous court decisions) to rule that Archie did not have the legal right to endanger the public health and safety by refusing to vaccinate his children because of his religious beliefs opposing vaccination.

The Tragic Utilitarian Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts

What were the beliefs of doctors in the early 20^th century? Well, many influential doctors in academia and public health and those leading social reform movements believed in a political philosophy called utilitarianism, which has its roots in hedonism. ^{26 27} Utilitarianism is a theory of morality based on a mathematical equation: the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.  Legislators like it because law making becomes a simple matter of adding and subtracting numbers, like generals do on a battlefield when counting how many casualties it took to win a battle.

Again and again in their ruling in Jacobson, the 1905 Supreme Court justices based their ideas on the pseudo ethic of utilitarianism, such as when they stated that it was “the duty of the constituted authorities to keep in view the welfare, comfort, and safety of the many, and not permit the interest of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few.”

What the U.S. Supreme Court did in Jacobson v. Massachusetts was to codify the utilitarian rationale into U.S. law so government officials could use it to make public health policy, including justifying forcing people with conscientious and religious beliefs opposing vaccination to get vaccinated or suffer societal sanctions like being denied a school education. But the truly evil core of utilitarianism was revealed in 1927, when Chief Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and his colleagues used Jacobson v. Massachusetts to endorse the practice eugenics, an idea that Hitler took and ran with during the Holocaust. ²⁸

SCOTUS Uses Jacobson v. Massachusetts to Justify Eugenics and Forced Sterilization

In Buck v Bell (1927), Justice Holmes ruled that the state of Virginia could use police power to protect the public health and welfare by involuntarily sterilizing a poor 17-year old single mother, Carrie Buck, who state officials had incorrectly judged to be morally unfit and mentally retarded – in effect, genetically defective - just like they said Carrie’s daughter and mother were.

In one of the most chilling statements in American jurisprudence, Justice Holmes declared that: ²⁹

   “It is better for the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring

for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those

who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Three generations of imbeciles are enough!”

The Ends Do Not Justify the Means

In the merciless 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, just as in the Machiavellian 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision, ethical principles grounded in respect for individual human life and civil liberties were stripped from U.S. public health law. The reasoning was that if utilitarianism could be used to create forced vaccination laws to immunize society from infectious disease, then forced sterilization laws could be created to immunize society against becoming infected with bad genes. The immoral premise that “the ends justifies the means” created a perfect climate for what became a tyranny of the majority.

By 1932, mandatory sterilization laws had been passed in 29 states.  More than 60,000 Americans were involuntarily sterilized by public health officials before, by the late 1940’s, most states put some restrictions on forced sterilization. However, the eugenics ruling by the US Supreme Court in Buck versus Bell based on the utilitarian ruling by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v Massachusetts has never been overturned. It still stands as part of US law and about 30 states still implement laws allowing forced sterilization of disabled people, especially women. ³⁰

Jacobson v Massachusetts: The “Most Important Judicial Decision in Public Health”

Mandatory vaccination proponent and Professor of Law Lawrence Gostin at Georgetown University has described Jacobson v. Massachusetts as “the most important judicial decision in public health.” ³¹ Gostin invoked Jacobson when he gave a ringing endorsement for the federal government’s COVID shot mandate in 2021. Standing on a utilitarian platform, Gostin devalued the individual’s natural right to autonomy by twisting the concept of freedom to promote universal compliance with forced vaccination laws.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Gostin said that, “Vaccine mandates are lawful and deeply entrenched in US history and values. They constitute a “wider freedom” so that everyone in society can feel safer where they work, learn, worship and live.” He proclaimed that “COVID-19 vaccines are a remarkable scientific tool that enables society to live in greater freedom with less fear. Using every tool – including mandates – to achieve high vaccination coverage enhances freedom.” ³²

Post 9-11 Federal Health Officials Lobbied for Model State Emergency Health Powers Act To Give More Power to State Health Officials

We should remember that Gostin was the architect of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in the late 1990s. ³³ That legislation was trotted out immediately after Sept. 11, 2001 when the nation was still in a state of shock. That model law was designed to give more power to state public health officials during a public health emergency declared by the federal Department of Health and Human Services or by the Governor of a state so officials can take control of all roads leading into and out of cities and states; to seize homes, cars, telephones, computers, food, fuel, clothing, firearms and alcoholic beverages and not be liable if these actions result in the destruction of personal property; and to be able to arrest, imprison and forcibly examine, vaccinate and medicate citizens without consent – and not be held liable if these actions resulted in death or injury.

The reason the CDC had to go state by state to get this done in 2001 was because they knew they could not get a federal law applied to all 50 states due to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution spelling out separation of powers between the federal government and state governments. NVIC worked with other civil liberty groups to oppose those models bills and although most states passed some form of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in 2002, we were able to get some states to insert informed consent protections in those oppressive laws that were rammed through state legislatures during a climate of fear post-9-11. Although federal health officials heavily influenced the outcome, the fact remains that state legislators do have the constitutional authority to work with constituents and repeal those laws in the future if they choose to do it.

Americans Are Working Successfully in State Legislatures to Protect Vaccine Informed Consent Rights

At NVIC, we have proved that active citizen participation in the making of public health law in state legislatures works. We’ve been empowering families in every state since 2010 through the NVIC Advocacy Portal. The good news is that Americans are becoming more involved in educating their state legislators and during the past four years we have been seeing many more positive vaccine-related bills being proposed to expand vaccine informed consent rights than there are bad bills being proposed to restrict those rights.

In the 2024 legislative session, NVIC analyzed, tracked and issued positions on 624 vaccine bills in 43 states and designated 390 of those bills as worth supporting, only highlighting 163 bills as being a threat to vaccine informed consent rights. This is a huge change in public awareness about the risks and failures of vaccines and the threat to freedom posed by “no exceptions” vaccine mandates.

Among the good vaccine-related bills proposed in or passed by state legislatures in 2024, there were bills that:  ³⁴

• LIMITED the reach of the World Health Organization and other global organizations in the sovereignty of the state; and bills that
• PROHIBITED censorship; and
• EXPANDED parental rights; and
• REQUIRED labeling of vaccine-free blood and mRNA technology used in pharmaceutical products and food production; and bills that
• PROHIBITED discrimination against citizens based on whether they were vaccinated or not; and bills that
• EXPANDED vaccine exemptions; and bills that r
• REQUIRED vaccine records to be incorporated in death records; and bills that
• RESTRICTED electronic vaccine tracking registries; and bills that
• PROHIBITED financial incentives from being given to pharmacists or doctors promoting and giving vaccines.

The state legislatures are where the good fight for vaccine freedom of choice is being fought in the 21^st century, and we are making historic gains in most states.

One of the big reasons elected state representatives are more willing to listen to constituents with vaccine safety concerns is that, today, everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated and was never healthy again. That truth cannot be covered up any longer, no matter who tries to stop it from being told.

Pro-Mandatory Vaccination Proponents Want SCOTUS to Reaffirm Jacobson v. Massachusetts in the 21^st Century

It is clear that Gostin and those who promote “no exceptions” mandatory vaccination laws ³⁵ would be delighted to see a religious vaccine exemption lawsuit be driven all the way to the US Supreme Court, where the utilitarian rationale for vaccine mandates could be reaffirmed in the 21^st century and likely strengthened. They have been waiting for that to happen for the past four decades, ever since parents of DPT vaccine injured children launched the vaccine safety and informed consent movement in America in 1982. Especially now, when a growing number of Americans have become more aware of vaccine risks and failures, ³⁶ a reaffirmation of utilitarianism as a guide to public health policymaking, which was so clearly articulated in Jacobson, would be a big win for the collectivists in charge of public health policymaking.

As I said earlier, there is a lot wrong with the Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts but the one thing the Court got right in 1905 was affirming the constitutional authority of states to make public health laws, which the residents of each state can influence by electing state legislators who will create public health laws that respect informed consent rights and freedom of conscience and religious beliefs.

Most Americans and SCOTUS Not Ready to Overturn Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Although this society is not ready to make a successful challenge to Jacobson v Massachusetts, we are making headway in educating more Americans about the need to reject the common belief that vaccines and vaccine mandates are the best way to prevent disease and protect the public health and safety. Although it is not the right time to drive a religious exemption case to a US Supreme Court, where current Supreme Court justices have recently voted to support a federal COVID vaccine mandate ^{37 38} and some voted in 2011 to eliminate product design defect liability from vaccine manufacturers, ³⁹ the time will come when we can successfully make that challenge with the right case and the right argument in the right Supreme Court.  We just should not jump the gun by prematurely challenging and Jacobson and risk losing the religious and belief exemption in any of the other 46 states that currently allow that exemption.

In the meantime, we can celebrate the wisdom of the founders of our nation, who understood the need for a decentralized balance of power between the federal and state governments. We can honor and work within that structure, rather than expect the federal government to solve a problem that belongs to the states.

The Natural Right to Autonomy and Freedom of Conscience is Non-Negotiable

NVIC has long been opposed to vaccine mandates, especially since the Supreme Court eliminated all product from vaccine manufacturers in 2011. ^{40 41} The natural right to autonomy and freedom of conscience is non-negotiable. We stand with all Americans fighting for the right to make informed, voluntary decisions about vaccination or the use of any pharmaceutical product that carries a risk of injury or death.

Go to NVIC.org and read our letter to the Religious Freedom Commission asking them to recommend there be no federal government interference in state vaccine law making. ⁴² Share it with your friends and family and elected representatives at the state and federal level. Join with NVIC to fight the good fight on behalf of this generation and those who come after this one.

It's your health, your family, your choice. And our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.

 

What You Need to Read Now:

• Warning Letter: The official response from NVIC, SFH, HFDF, and others sounding the alarm about the threat to states’ rights is a warning that the proposed EO isn't a fix, it's a federal Trojan horse.
• Addendum (The Constitutional Reality Check) is a legal breakdown describing how the proposed EO mangles protection of states rights outlined in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution—and risks reaffirming a bad precedent-setting 1905 SCOTUS ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts that endorsed forced vaccination and invalidated religious belief objections to vaccine mandates. READ OUR LETTER AND ADDENDUM HERE

• The EO Itself: “Preserving Access to Education and Free Exercise of Religion”  The full text that most signers never read. If you signed the letter backing this EO, read this before your name is used to promote vaccine mandates. Click HERE
  
  Take Action:
  📥 Want to sign the No Vaccine Mandates coalition letter as yourself or organization? Click HERE to add your name today!
  📣 Share the Addendum with your family, friends, state and federal lawmakers, pastors, or board members.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with an *

* Name

Name is a required field

* Email

Please enter a valid email address

* Comments

Please enter a comment.

Post Comment

34 Responses to "Keep the Federal Government Out of State Public Health and Vaccine Law Making"

Esther

Posted: 6/16/2025 12:55:42 AM

Ty

Katie Walker

Posted: 6/16/2025 10:32:25 AM

States’ rights!!

Mary Christenson

Posted: 6/16/2025 8:40:01 PM

I believe the States are the best venue for decisions about vaccine exemptions. The federal government should stay out of these decisions. This is a health freedom issue, not a public health concern.

nancy

Posted: 6/16/2025 9:07:52 PM

I have sent this to fl. state attorney general, and fl. surgeon general. they are a good state to help and get other states on board. Thank you so much for all you do! Nancy

Jay

Posted: 6/16/2025 9:54:10 PM

They want a war bring it. A lot of these mo gos need hemp neck ties. And the gov needs thinning. Not many are willing to get vxd. After this last bs. Even those that believed in the junk science are now thinking 2x.

Gaye Sponamore

Posted: 6/16/2025 10:23:26 PM

A vaccine is a medical intervention. No adult or newborn, without parental consent, should be forced to submit to a medical intervention without consent. Our bodies are a gift from God to be cared for until we are reunited with Him. No government, (federal, state or local) should be allowed by mandate or law to force an individual to yield to a medical procedure that they are opposed to, EVER! Whatever happened to informed consent? Companies and individuals who falsify data in regard to vaccines, biologics and other medical interventions/procedures should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity.

Wyatt Waxler

Posted: 6/16/2025 11:07:06 PM

The work of NVIC is very important and must be an ongoing endeavor. If more citizens are informed there is hope for protecting our Constitutional rights.

Judith Queisner

Posted: 6/16/2025 11:19:38 PM

The only time I ever had the flu was when I took flu shots. I have not had the flu in over 30 years Vaccinations made me extremely ill. The only time I felt like I might die was after a vaccination.

John

Posted: 6/16/2025 11:35:06 PM

It's not states' rights or religious freedom, it's personal freedom from injecting foreign material into your body. It's a "personal right", not necessarily religious, not to be coerced into accepting anything foreign into your body. Like "...In the Book of Revelation, the "mark of the beast" is a symbol of allegiance to the Antichrist and his system. It's depicted as a mark [like an injection] on the right hand or forehead that enables buying and selling, and those who refuse it are persecuted. The mark is associated with the number 666..."

Dawn

Posted: 6/16/2025 11:44:28 PM

First of all, it's hideous, outrageous and criminal that we have to ASK the government for permission not to inject our children with toxins, heavy metals, poisons, dyes, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, etc. from CDC's childhood schedule of shots. Having said that, this is not good for those of us in NY who already had religious exemptions stripped from our children to attend school. The medical exemption still exists, however 99.999% of the time the NYS Dept of Health rejects them...and I mean LITERALLY. We just had a rally at the capital in Albany and one girl had 7 (SEVEN) doctors sign off on her medical exemption due to adverse effects from vaccines, and it was STILL denied and the school would not let her back in. We NEED HELP here in NY and since our state is virtually communist run by Democrats who want to control every single thing in our state, what is our recourse if the federal government does not get involved in this? We certainly can't rely on NY Democrats to help with this issue and it's a HUGE problem for our children. Please advise if you have anything to offer. Thank you very much

John

Posted: 6/16/2025 11:49:43 PM

My personal healthcare is not to be ordered by any government. Only I have control over my body.

Cherri

Posted: 6/16/2025 11:58:09 PM

We should never have our freedom of choice taken away.

Lori

Posted: 6/17/2025 12:14:53 AM

I wish the article had ended with telling the reader what happened to Henning Jacobson and his son. Were they forced to get vaccinated? If so, what happened to them post-jab? That would have added a possible sobering or possibly hopeful conclusion to our history.

Carla

Posted: 6/17/2025 12:18:57 AM

None of this makes any sense at all. In order to justify the use of vaccination to prevent infectious diseases you first have to establish disease-causing biological agents and contagion. Neither have been shown scientifically. We really need to go back to step one and address the scope of this nonsense.

Shelly Hamid

Posted: 6/17/2025 12:22:22 AM

No one has the right to dictate to another regarding vaccines, including at the state level. It just remain a personal choice.

Sheryl

Posted: 6/17/2025 12:59:11 AM

Because I believe I should have the right to choose what is and is not put into my body, I do not believe in mandates for vaccines. It is wrong!

Yvonne

Posted: 6/17/2025 1:31:03 AM

BRAVO! Thank you Barbara!

Marcene

Posted: 6/17/2025 1:39:24 AM

I support the idea that states should have the power to decide what public health laws are right for them. I support the idea that I want autonomy for my health decisions and do not want to be forced to vaccinate when most of the vaccines have not gone through double blind placebo controlled scientific studies for true safety or effectiveness. I also believe in religious exemptions. True health does not come about because we vaccinate.

Juanita

Posted: 6/17/2025 2:03:40 AM

What makes the USA unique, is that all people have freedom of choice. Government cannot and should not impose their will as to how we choose to handle our healthcare. Forcing regulations is contradictory to our constitutional rights.

Michelle Johnson

Posted: 6/17/2025 2:32:02 AM

No legal action should be taken to drive a religious vaccine exemption case to the US Supreme Court, where the current court majority supportive of vaccine mandates could reaffirm – and very likely strengthen – the cruel utilitarian rationale used in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) to deny more Americans the freedom to make voluntary decisions about vaccination, including for reasons of conscience or religious beliefs.

Theresa Bell

Posted: 6/17/2025 2:38:57 AM

No pharma liability, no vaccine mandates! When the right to informed medical consent is denied, our basic freedoms and rights are equally endangered.

Jon Olsen

Posted: 6/17/2025 4:03:04 AM

Despite 6 overflow rooms of citizens, that failure to allow religious exemptions passed by one vote in Maine. But it also sparked significant resistance which remains robust here. Some of us continue to assert our right not to BARE arms!

Joy H

Posted: 6/17/2025 9:01:29 AM

It is vital that states rights in regard to vaccine mandates be upheld. I have lived in five states. There is a reason we live in Alabama and not Washington State. Culturally and historically states rights better meet the needs of constituents than federal mandates. Just look at the VAERS system debacle as an example of incompetence at the federal level. Why do you think Soros, the WEF, the WHO, are targeting local change now? They have less power the closer they get to communities where people are paying attention…

Dolores Fiala

Posted: 6/17/2025 2:46:39 PM

no vaccine mandate

Scott Kiley

Posted: 6/17/2025 3:28:06 PM

Thank you Barbara for your consistent fight, brilliant knowledge and tireless effort to end the tyranny we face.

Anita Domnitz

Posted: 6/17/2025 4:10:26 PM

All US citizens should have sovereignty over our bodies & what substances are put into our bodies!

Iwona Hirsz

Posted: 6/18/2025 12:06:49 PM

Freedom of choice for everyone!!!

Juliann Malmrose

Posted: 6/19/2025 1:33:40 PM

We should never be forced to inject something in our bodies that we do not consent to.

Tara

Posted: 6/19/2025 2:27:38 PM

Shouldn’t mandate something that is toxic!

Katlyn

Posted: 6/19/2025 3:15:48 PM

Nobody should be forced into anything. We should have the freedom. It runs in my family to have vaccine reactions and I have autoimmune and we don't want to be forced into vaccines

Joshua Hagood

Posted: 6/19/2025 3:23:20 PM

Parents should always have the choice to protect there children..

Gregory Price

Posted: 6/20/2025 1:26:52 PM

The Sovereign States Created the federal United States of America. The United States has NO right to dictate what the the Sovereign States do in their territory as long as they are compliant within the Compact of the US Constitution. The idea that the Created entity (U.S.A.) can dictate to the creator (the State) is attuned to the Fry Cook Bossing around the Restaurant Owner.

Alison McIrvin

Posted: 6/26/2025 2:39:02 AM

Thank you for your hard work on behalf of medical health freedom and freedom of conscience!

RR

Posted: 7/1/2025 4:34:17 PM

I understand your argument, but what is the path forward? The end result needs to be states should not be able to force vaccinations onto their residents under any circumstance, period. I do not have any faith in the corrupt politicians in NY and others to do the right thing without being forced. How do we get there quickly?