AZ Court Rules against CPS regarding forced vaccinations

The Arizona State Court of Appeals has slapped down efforts by Child Protective Services to have a youngster in foster care immunized over a parent's objections. In a divided ruling, the majority said that while the state has legal custody, the parent — who presumably would get the child back someday — has certain "residual rights" the state must honor when possible. Judge Peter Eckerstrom said there has to be a compelling need to overrule a parent.

Judge Philip Espinosa, in his dissent, said his colleagues were ignoring one very obvious fact: A court gave temporary custody to CPS after concluding that the parent, identified only as Diana H., was unable or unwilling to provide the necessary care and control of her daughter Cheyenne.

"The state thus has every reason to question Diana's ability to make the best decisions for Cheyenne's care and no reason to presume that she would necessarily act in accordance with Cheyenne's best interests," Espinosa wrote. The ruling could have implications beyond immunizations in cases where children are placed in foster care.

First, Eckerstrom said, the state would run afoul of both the state and federal constitutions if it tried to impose values on a child that differed from those chosen by a parent.

Potentially more sweeping, the judge said the laws that allow the state to take temporary custody of a child specifically spell out what powers and responsibilities that includes. These range from the right of physical custody and the right to discipline the child to the requirement to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Eckerstrom said anything not on that list remains the right of the biological parent.

Court records show the state sought custody of Cheyenne amid concerns the child was malnourished and Diana was unable to protect her from abuse from the girl's father. Diana did not contest the state action. But she did argue against immunizations as contrary to her religious beliefs.


Eckerstrom acknowledged that the primary focus in these kinds of cases has to be the best interests of the child. But he said the law also says those best interests are served by the presumptive goal of reuniting the child with the parent. And that means whenever possible having the parent involved in the child's upbringing.


In this case, the judge noted that a doctor testified that a child Cheyenne's age would normally have had 15 immunizations. But the doctor said none of the diseases pose a life-threatening risk to the child. Eckerstrom said the state's desire to immunize might be different if there were something showing the child was particularly susceptible to one of the diseases. But there was no such evidence here.

And Eckerstrom said the public policy of the state is embodied in the fact the Legislature specifically gives parents in Arizona the right to exempt their children from immunization on religious grounds, "a decision we have no authority to second- guess."

Espinosa, however, said once a judge gave the state legal custody of Cheyenne, even temporarily, it had the obligation to provide comprehensive medical care and determine what care is in the child's best interests. He said the decision of his colleagues creates unforeseen problems.

"Under the majority's approach, if a parent raises a religious objection to a dependent child's receiving medical care, the welfare of the child ceases to be the governing standard for the juvenile court," Espinosa wrote. "This result is not only inconsistent with legislative intent but offends the state's public policy of protecting and providing for its most helpless citizens — dependent children, whose parents are unable or unwilling to do so."

COMMENT: At every turn, the State and the government is taking on a paternal role and working hard to take away the rights of parents to do what they feel is in the best interest of children. Run away vaccination demands are pressing in all around us. Everyone should in Arizona should thank and commend these judges for upholding the last threads of parental rights.

Musings on what the road to Hell is paved with

Sandy (Mintz) Gottstein has been writing the "Scandals" column for many years. Her sage words need to be passed on...and assimilated.

Dr Sherri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scandals - 11/21/07
Forced Vaccinations - Musings on what the road to Hell is paved with

Call me naive, but I don't think that most people who unquestioningly promote vaccination as the end-all and be-all of preventive health care are evil or have evil intent. In fact, other than a possible select few, I think most ardent vaccine supporters honestly believe they are helping humanity.

Perhaps they are. And if properly designed studies ever are conducted, time will tell. Regardless of their intent, however, I do not view their unwavering support as benign, fair-minded or responsible. For as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

In the past week, pavement of that road has appeared to bring us closer than ever to that wretched place. I am referring, of course, to recent efforts to force vaccination in Maryland by threatening parents with jail.

There are so many aspects of this story that are alarming, it is hard to know where to begin. But let me start with what I once said in a speech, from which I will be quoting: "We parents deserve the right to choose what we feel is best for the children we love, and for whom we are responsible. No one else will be expected to care for our children if the vaccines or diseases maim them. No one else’s heart will be broken like ours if they are killed or otherwise harmed."

No one, indeed.

Of course, the all-trusting supporters of vaccination will argue that vaccine damage is minimal and that the benefits outweigh the risks. But as anyone who has read my column knows, from what I can tell and have provided credible evidence for, those studies that purport to show zero to minimal damage are based on flawed research, which includes, in part 1) improper comparisons between vaccinated groups and the failure to include any never-vaccinated people as controls, 2) outright dismissal of virtually all anecdotal and other evidence, as well as failure to properly follow up on any of it, and 3) dismissal of biological evidence in support of damage claims.

But even if vaccines had been genuinely shown to be mostly safe, there are some very insidious things going on here. As the National Vaccine Information Center has aptly warned, "If it happens to your child, the risks are 100%". Thus, implied in the argument that damage is minimal is a dismissal of the harm done to some children. I would submit that the amount of harm vaccines do is unknown. But even if it were small, the implication is that vaccine damage or death is less important than disease damage or death, or that all that matters is sheer numbers. And although most would not say this directly, also implied is that vaccine-harmed children are less important than disease-harmed ones.

Vaccine-damaged children are also often treated like drafted casualties in our war again disease. It is as if being drafted for this purpose is inherently a good thing, an honorable thing, that vaccine risk is obviously a risk well worth taking. Even if it were a good thing, however, isn't it a risk that the parents of the potentially damaged child should be allowed to take? Is it right to force vaccinations on anyone? Does the end justify the means?

And isn't the very subtle implication that only death or harm from disease is "bad"; that death or harm from a vaccine is somehow okay or "good", because it is in support of the "cause" of "public health"?

Also implied in the argument that it is okay to force vaccination is the notion that "you", an unwilling vaccine participant, should be forced to vaccinate your child(ren) to protect "my" (the one who seeks protection) child(ren) from disease. There are two major problems with this argument, First, why should someone be required to risk their child for another? What makes the child being "protected" more important than the "protector"?

Second, if the vaccines work, anyone choosing them will be protected. If they don’t prevent the spread of the disease to the vaccinated, why are we vaccinating? It hardly seems right that those who don’t want to be vaccinated should have vaccination forced on them because vaccines don’t always work.

And to whatever extent vaccines are being required because the 'immune suppressed' cannot be vaccinated, and are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of disease, while my heart goes out to such people, they are not more important than children who are harmed by vaccines. Nor should the notion that vaccination may in itself be creating immune suppression be left out of this equation.

Besides there is documented proof of outbreaks in 100% vaccinated populations. The irony is, of course, that even if they don't recognize it, those who support forcing vaccination are doing so precisely because they don't believe in the effectiveness of vaccines. Besides, where is the sense of history, the recognition that medicine as practiced and promoted has often been found to be lacking or even just plain, dead wrong?

But even if we were to assume virtually 100% effectiveness and safety of vaccines, is forcing vaccines in a free society ever justified? As I said in that speech, "I also consider any notion of 'public health' to be suspect, which sacrifices the individual to some alleged higher goal. Many of us find it way scarier that the state would sacrifice children to someone's idea of the common good, than to take our chances with Mother Nature. Who decides? What's the right number? Who's counting? Even in wartime, the draft of adults is only used very judiciously and sparingly. We also go to considerable effort to avoid enemy civilian casualties. Yet we seem to think nothing of sacrificing our own innocent children."

Our brave soldiers have fought and died, and will continue to fight and die, in order to protect us from tyranny which threatens our freedom and way of life, including what the Declaration of Independence "hold(s) to be self-evident", the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Do we really want to force vaccination and violate this most basic American right? Do we really want to pave that road?

Mandatory Vaccination in Maryland REALLY IS about Money

(from Dawn Richardson at PROVE (www.vaccineinfo.net)

What could possibly be behind these forced vaccination? There are several factors that could be at play, but the primary suspicion that stands out in my mind is money. So I called the communications department of the Prince George’s County School District to ask them specifically some questions about the amount of money the school district gets paid per child per day. They have not returned my call to answer the questions. Thankfully, the National Center for Education Statistics has some great information about Prince George’s County Public Schools online available to the public to anyone with an internet connection! (http://nces.ed.gov/)

According to this government website, in the 2006-2007 school year, Prince George’s County Public Schools received $11,325 per student per year! That is more than I pay for my kid’s private school tuition! The breakdown was 7% from federal money or $780, 46% from the state at $5246, and 47% from local revenue at $5298. Assuming a typical 180 day school year, that comes out to $63 per child per day of school attended.

Why is this important information? If the Washington Post article is correct when they said that 2300 kids are being barred from school, all of a sudden $63 per student per day turns into a astronomical loss of $144,900 PER DAY for the school district. That would light a fire under anyone’s backside to stop that hemorrhaging of loss of income, but it does not justify the way these families are being treated.

The take home message we’d like to send to the zealots in Maryland is please don’t patronize parents and tell them this about health, and don’t bully and scare them. Tell them the truth. Tell them you are desperate for the money in order to educate their kids. In order for the money and education to happen, the kids have to be in school and have their paperwork in order. Let them know about their rights to the limited exemptions available. Warn them about the real risks of the vaccines. Give them the choice they have granted by law to refuse. Let them know the chicken pox vaccine does not even work. A school in Round Rock Texas has more than 40 kids out with chickenpox even though they have all been vaccinated. Tell them that if they don’t they need to contact their elected officials to stop every vaccine from coming out being tied to their child's ability to receive an education.


When Governor Rick Perry tried to force all 6th grade girls in Texas to be vaccinated with the vaccine for the sexually transmitted virus HPV, thankfully the legislature knew better and effectively vacated his executive order saving the families in Texas the ill-effects of that mandate. Coming down the pipe are vaccines for everything from obesity, smoking, and drug addiction to vaccines for more sexually transmitted diseases like HIV. If they have to use police with dogs and threaten parents with jail time to get them to vaccinate their kids for chicken pox, what do you think they will feel they need to do to get every child shot up with an HIV vaccine? What can you do in the meantime? Start by making a vow to yourself to take an active roll in making sure that people who support forced vaccination and trampling on parental rights don’t get elected. Just a reminder that Glenn Ivey was elected into office in Maryland.

If you aren't already on it, get on our email list at http://www.vaccineinfo.net/, Get on NVIC’s e-newsletter at http://www.nvic.org/, go to VaccineLiberation at http://www.vaclib.org/ and do your homework. Go to Dr. Sherri Tenpenny’s website at http://www.DrTenpenny.com/ and join the Coalition Against Mandatory Vaccination. Together we can educate others about this issue and together we can stop the insanity of mandatory vaccination.

Dawn Richardson, PROVE
Austin, TX

Jail Time in Maryland...what's coming next?

Jail Time for Not Vaccinating in Maryland?
by Barbara Loe Fisher

On Nov. 17, Prince George, Maryland State's Attorney Glenn F. Ivy (D) and the county's public health and education officials are bringing the power of the State down on parents who have not gotten their children injected with vaccines for chickenpox and hepatitis B. In a Nov. 13 press release issued by the Prince George's County Public Schools and at a press conference that day, state officials made it clear they were going to use whatever means they had to use to force the children to get vaccinated. Ivy said he was prepared to throw the parents whose children had not gotten their shots in jail: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, but it's got to be done. I'm willing to move forward with legal action."

The parents of children, who have been kicked out of school for failing to get their shots and are subject to state truancy laws, are being summoned to the Prince George's County Courthouse in Upper Marlboro on Saturday with their children to get them vaccinated on- site or face fines and jail time.Yesterday, in two televised debates on CNN with longtime national vaccine policymaker William Shaffner, M.D. of Vanderbilt, and on MSNBC with Prince George's County Health Officer Donald Shell, M.D., Barabara Loe-Fisher made the following points:

1) Terrorizing and threatening parents with jail time for not getting their children a chickenpox shot is not the way to handle the situation;

2) Some of the children may have had serious reactions to previous vaccinations and their parents are only trying to protect them from harm;

3) Even though it is unclear why all of the parents have not complied with the new vaccine requirements, when government officials use threats and intimidation to force parents to do what they want them to do, parents will fear and mistrust government officials;

4) There are many new vaccines being developed that will be added to the childhood schedule and what has happened in Maryland brings up the question that many parents are asking: How many more vaccines are children going to be forced to get to be able to get a public education? Many parents think too many vaccines are already required;

5) Chickenpox is not smallpox and hepatitis B is not polio. Hepatitis B is not an infection that can be transmitted in the school setting and chickenpox is mild for most children. These diseases do not fit the model of highly contagious diseases with a high rate of complications leading to permanent injury and death that have led to state vaccine requirements in the past;

6) Although Maryland and other states may allow medical and religious exemptions, they are very difficult to obtain. Doctors cannot easily write medical exemptions that are not second- guessed by public health officials, who require strict adherence to narrow contraindications blessed by the CDC. Often parents, who attempt to file religious exemptions, are thrown into rooms and grilled about the sincerity of the religious beliefs;7) Parents are wondering why every vaccine that industry produces is always automatically recommended for universal use by the CDC and then mandated;

8) The vaccine safety and informed consent debate is becoming more intense because more parents are reporting that their children are regressing into poor health after receiving many vaccines. Vaccines carry risks of seizures, brain inflammation and even death and often high risk children are not screened out of the program;

9) It is time for the people to take back the power - through their elected representatives - to decide which vaccines their children should have to take to go to school. In the past few decades, legislatures have given up their power to vote on which new vaccines will be mandated and have handed that power over to public health officials who have never met a vaccine they did not want to mandate;

10) The ethical principle of informed consent that applies to every other medical procedure that carries risks should also be applied to vaccination. Everyone should have the right to make an informed, voluntary vaccination choice.

There are many reasons why children do not receive vaccines:
>>Some parents want to vaccinate their children but do not have access to public health clinics that are open during times that are convenient for parents.

>>There may be cost and affordability issues.

>>Others want to exempt their children from certain vaccines for reasons of religious belief or conscience but, as is the case in Maryland, cannot file a religious exemption unless they refuse all vaccines.

>>Some may have children who have regressed into poor health after previous vaccinations and believe their children are genetically or otherwise at high risk for suffering vaccine reactions but can't find a doctor to write a medical exemption and do not have religious beliefs that qualify them for a religious exemption.

>>Others are opposed to all vaccine use because they have determined that vaccines are not necessary, safe or effective.

Whatever the reasons for parents not vaccinating their children with all state mandated vaccines, it is inappropriate for state officials to threaten parents with jail time. Reportedly, there are about 6,000 truant students in the state of Maryland. Are the parents of the other 4,000 students who are missing from school also being given deadlines and facing jail time their truant children? Or could this military action by what some parents are referring to as "The Vaccine Police" be simply a case of an eager State's Attorney looking for a political platform teaming up with over-zealous health and education officials to achieve a 100 percent vaccination rate with all state-mandated vaccines in Maryland?

Whatever the case, hopefully the several thousand children showing up with their parents at the courthouse tomorrow to get vaccinated will be carefully screened for pre-existing health conditions that could put them at high risk for suffering severe reactions and their parents will be fully informed about how to monitor their children for symptoms of vaccine reactions.

In the zeal to implement public policy, what health and education officials often forget is that individual responses to pharmaceutical products vary. The one-size-fits-all approach increases the risk of side effects for those genetically and otherwise biologically at higher risk and that is just one of many good reasons why the right to informed consent to vaccination is a human right.

COMMENT: Last night, when I was a guest on Coast-to-Coast AM, one caller said I was doing a "great disservice" to the country by suggesting people should not vaccinate because it was a complete disregard for Public Health. I totally disagreed.

The problem with that comment is that 'Public Health' is completely out of control. Vaccination policies were put into place when there were only a handful of vaccines for children. Up through 1985, children received only MMR, oral polio and DTP vaccines. In 2007, add to that hepatitis A and B, H. influenza (HiB), seven-strain strep vaccine (Prevnar), Rotavirus, Chickenpox, HPV (Gardasil) and influenza. That is at least 110 vaccine antigens, plus traces of more than 100 chemicals, injected into children by the time the enter middle school. Public Health needs to be more than high vaccination rates and low infection rates.

At the beginnings of 'Public Health' policy, efforts were made to convince persons to participate through cooperation. Since that late 1960s, the pendulum has swung from education and collaboration to heavy handed coercion through advertisement campaigns designed to shame and terrorize parents into believing the are neglecting their children by questioning, and at times refusing, vaccines.

The current example of heavy handedly slapping of parents into "compliance" is a further example of how far our freedoms have eroded. While we drop bombs and fire bullets around the world to ensure the freedom of others, we are incarcerating parents for doing what they believe is in the best interest of their children.

Wake up, Americans. What will they be incarcerating us for next in the name of compliance?

Dr. Sherri on Coast-to-Coast AM TONIGHT

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has been invited to be a guest on Coast-to-Coast AM TONIGHT with host, George Noory.

C2C is the largest radio audience in the world, spanning the globe through radio syndications and shortwave stations. Tens of millions will hear about the push for mandatory vaccination...and have the opportunity to voice their objections!

TONIGHT: November 15, 2007, 1-2amEST

Topic: "Vaccinate Your Kids or Go To Jail"

In the last 24 hours, HUNDREDS have joined the Coalition Against Mandatory Vaccination. Go to www.DrTenpenny.com and join!

Spread the word!
Dr Sherri

Vaccinate Your Kids or Go To Jail

Parents Of Teens Lacking Immunization Called To Court

More than 2,000 Prince George's County students have not gotten their state-mandated shots. Tonight, an ultimatum to some of those parents: Come to court, get the shots, or else.

Some students have missed as much as a month and a half of school because they haven't gotten the required immunizations-- for chickenpox and hepatitis B. So now the school system says it's time to get tough and take those parents to court. Free clinics, free shots, door-to-door visits, and countless letters. Still more than 2,300 Prince George’s county students don't have their required immunizations. This Saturday, more than 1600 students and their parents have been ordered to appear in circuit court for the children to be immunized.

Health workers will be on hand to give the shots immediately. The problem is a new law that took effect last year requiring students in the fifth through 10th grade to also have the chicken pox and hepatitis b vaccine. Parents who don't show up or fail to comply-- could be fined up to $50 and get up to 10 days in jail. Although getting students vaccinated by "court order" may seem unusual, the law is on the school district's side.

Mary Kivlighan with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Health says-- the Supreme Court weighed in on this very issue more than 100 years ago with Smallpox. The school district does grant exemptions for religious purposes or other medical reasons but only if parents apply. Going to court-- was a last resort.

Hepatitis b vaccine requires three shots over six months. One of the problems has been that students will get one shot but don't get the others. Therefore, the school district states they're not in compliance.

COMMENT: The push to vaccinate is completely out of control. Mandates and requirements are passed by uninformed and under-educated State legislators who are sold a bill of goods by smiling pharmaceutical lobbyists being well-paid to pedal their poisons. Parents do not have an opportunity to vote on the necessity of mandates; they are shoved down their throats. They pay taxes to get their children into schools. Then they are required to inject substances their children with substances that could maim or kill them in order to be in "compliance."

The vaccines that are being required in Prince George's County -- for chickenpox, a totally benign disease and for hepatitis b, a disease of drug-using homosexual adults -- are not necessary for the health of these children. Do parents know what is in these vaccines? The chickenpox vaccine is made from aborted fetal cells and contains sucrose, hydrolyzed gelatin, salt, MSG (0.5 mg), sodium phosphate dibasic, potassium phosphate monobasic, potassium chloride, trace EDTA, neomycin and serum from cows. The hepatitis b vaccine contains aluminum and yeast.

The parents of these children need to ban together and revolt. Protest, march in the street, pay the fine and spend the time in jail on principle alone. When will this stop? When will we wake up and JUST SAY NO to mandatory injections?

New Tactics by Pediatrician Bullies

"So my pediatrician just instated a rule that they are now going to charge a $20 fee for 'delaying' or opting out of any vaccinations for inconvenience. Neither of my kids have received any their 4-year old shots and some we have passed up completely, so I would have to pay the$20 for both kids at each check-up. Of course, insurance would never pick that up..."

COMMENT: Health care consumers are becoming more savvy and more independent. With the plethora of books, CDs, Internet sites and TV programs teaching people about their bodies,m parents are learning how to take care of themselves...and their kids. Many parents I know are becoming extremely skeptical of the need the so-called "well baby visits." The primary purpose of the doctor appointments is not to teach new-moms about feedings, sleep issues, and what to expect. These "visits" are nothing more than an opportunity for rabid vaccinators to pop their babies full of chemicals, killed viruses and bits of bacteria. Now, if they don't comply or even question the need for so many vaccines all at once, it looks like there is going price. In real dollars.

Moms know when their kids are sick and need attention. They intuitively know when something "isn't right." With the strong arm tactics of doctors who are supposed to take care of families and babies, parents need to start boycotting their offices. Picket, hand out letters, send letters to the editor of your local paper exposing what they are doing. This type of action needs to be exposed for what it is: Coercion of the worst kind.

The only way to get what you want from your doctor is force him/her to comply with your wishes for your child. If you CPA or banker were not serving you well, you'd get another one. A physician is a paid consultant. Get one you like...and respects your wishes for your child...or get another one. What else can you do?

• Read some books--there are many out there about how to raise a healthy child without vaccinations
• Join the Holistic Mom's Network locally and online
• Take an online class about homeopathy
• Put together a network of like-minded parents in your neighborhood for a support group.
• Find a naturopathic physician, acupuncturist, doctor of oriental medicine, open-minded osteopathic physician or nurse practitioner. They're out there... you need to ask.
• Do you think your mom...or your grandma...had a "pediatrician" for every sniffle or fever you had? Talk to the elders in your community, church or synagogue. They have years of wisdom to share.

Parents need a health care provider and advisor when their child is sick. They do NOT need a Medical Parent that scolds, shames or strong arms them into compliance. I urge and hope to empower parents to take the initiative so you don't need a Medical Parent telling you to inject your child against your better. Tactics like those stated above make doctors as whole...and pediatricians in particular...less desirable all the time.

Start a revolution: Boycott Pediatrician Bullies.