Home

Rutherford Institute Warns California Legislature Against Adopting Mandatory Vaccine Law, Urges Accommodation of Religious Beliefs

5 Comments

For Immediate Release: June 24, 2015

RutherfordHeader_2

Rutherford Institute Warns California Legislature Against Adopting Mandatory Vaccine Law, Urges Accommodation of Religious Beliefs

This press release is also available at  www.rutherford.org.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —Pointing to statistics showing that the number of vaccinated schoolchildren has not reached levels which would pose a significant danger of disease outbreaks, The Rutherford Institute is warning the California State Assembly against adopting legislation that would deny families with religious and/or “personal” beliefs an exemption from certain childhood vaccinations required for attendance in public or private schools.

If enacted, SB No. 277 would eliminate a provision of California law that currently allows families to be exempted from certain childhood vaccinations due to religious and/or “personal” beliefs. Noting that the total elimination of a vaccine exemption for those with conscientious objections is a disproportionate response to any risk posed by the presence of unvaccinated persons within the population, constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead is urging the California legislature to align itself with the 47 other states that provide religious exemptions for vaccines.

The Rutherford Institute’s letter to the California Assembly is available at www.rutherford.org.

“If SB No. 277 is enacted, it will place families in the dilemma of adhering to their deeply-held beliefs or forgoing the opportunity of a public education,” said Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “The state should not ask citizens to sacrifice their religious beliefs and right to conscientiously object to something that runs afoul of those beliefs except where the threat to public welfare is clear and present.”

Currently, all but two states (Mississippi and West Virginia) allow an exemption for parents who have sincerely-held religious beliefs in opposition to certain vaccinations required for children attending public and private schools. California law currently provides an exemption based on both religious and “personal” beliefs. However, in response to an outbreak of measles earlier this year traced to California’s Disneyland, legislation was introduced in the California Senate, Senate Bill 277, that would eliminate the exemption for both religious and personal beliefs. Despite strong opposition, Senate Bill 277 was approved by the state Senate on May 14, 2015, and sent to the California Assembly for vote.

In making a case for the state to preserve an exemption for those with religious and/or “personal” objections, The Rutherford Institute points out that accommodating religious beliefs when it comes to vaccination requirements is not only almost universally recognized, but is in keeping with the nation’s long history of respect for and toleration of religious beliefs. For example, the Institute’s letter cites George Washington, who wrote “the conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to them, as a due regard to the protection and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.” The Institute also asserts that there is no compelling health and safety reason for not accommodating persons with personal beliefs in opposition to vaccinations. The threshold number of children who are presently vaccinated is enough to provide the entire population with protection from outbreak under the principle of “herd immunity.”

This press release is also available at Rutherford Institute Warns California Legislature Against Adopting Mandatory Vaccine Law, Urges Accommodation of Religious Beliefs

The New “Cult” – Amish?

9 Comments

submit to reddit Tell a Friend 

By Lynn Swearingen  (c) copyright 2010

All rights Reserved

There comes a pivot point in our society. A moment that is frozen in time, cradled in the hands of history when no longer as a society we operate as a unit of common sense. When opponents meet upon a battlefield and decide whom will be the victor. As we look back en-masse the realization that we have gone too far descends upon us : at that moment each individual must look into their very souls and ask “What have we done?”

A moment such as the many that span the written history of the Human race is now unfolding in Wisconsin. The opponents are defined such as David and Goliath. Powerful, strong, large and undefeatable versus the meek and humble, inexperienced in battle. The arrogance and sneering Goliath in this situation is none other than Clark County District Attorney Darwin Zwieg. Our David is Mr. Emanual Miller, an Old Order Amish.

Mr. Zwieg, not content to respect the religious rights, as set forth in the Wisconsin Constitution and cited here: More

The Lost People: Amish vs NAIS Part II

13 Comments

PPJG Original Article (See attached copyright notice. All rights reserved.)

Posted September 26, 2009 6:20 pm CST

 by Paul Griepentrog                                                                 amish

 The Lost People: Part II

A way of life was put on trial in Neillsville, Wisconsin on September 23, 2oo9, in the case against Emanuel Miller Jr., having been charged under complaint for civil forfeiture because he refused to register his property under the state’s premise registration program.  The morning session was devoted to the evidentiary hearing in which the state, represented by Clark Co. district attorney Darwin Zwieg and Bonnie Walksmuth, a court appointed attorney representing Emanuel Miller, presented evidence on behalf of the parties.

The afternoon session was devoted to the trial phase and concluded around 4 o’clock, at which time Judge Jon Counsell gave instructions that upon the completion of the trial transcript, there would be thirty days to file motions, fifteen days after to file rebuttals, oral arguments would occur seven days later, and then he would make his final decision.  More

%d bloggers like this: