Shots In Arms - Michigan Potentially Eliminating Religious Exempts With New Vaccine Laws

In Michigan the Marxist Democrats are trying to sneak through legislation that will eliminate religious exemptions from schools, require reporting of vaccination status to local and state authorities, and require workers of private businesses that provide child care services to ALL be vaccinated. House Bills HB 6205 through HB6210 are waiting for approval. And right before my last edit to this article, I learned of 3 more bills in the Michigan senate SBs 875–877. We will get into the specifics momentarily. But it’s important to take a step back and realize that the drive to use medical emergencies while destroying freedom is very much at work. And with the outbreak of avian flu in the United States and our overreaction to speculation by agencies who enjoyed great power during Covid, we should be vigilant. We have had no victory over or vanquishment of those who lied and misled us in 2020. They still have their jobs.

Writing last week about John Dickinson on the anniversary of his famous Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, I didn’t think I would be talking about vaccines and mandates while evoke his name, but his warning is even more prescient and applicable to what we are going through today. Yet the human condition is playing out here, and if this were so obvious why are repeating the same failing steps?

Some persons may think this act of no consequence, because the duties are so small. A fatal error. That is the very circumstance most alarming to me. For I am convinced, that the authors of this law would never have obtained an act to raise so trifling a sum as it must do, had they not intended by it to establish a precedent for future use. To console ourselves with the smallness of the duties, is to walk deliberately into the snare that is set for us, praising the neatness of the workmanship.

John Dickinson - Letters From a Farmer

When you are waiting for checks and balances to protect you from tyranny it’s too late. The transgressions of loss of bodily autonomy via capricious legislation is more egregious than the masks, than the distancing, for those behind these initiatives do not relent and always ask for more. Why? Because the establishment social engineers and control freaks were never turned back.

We believe that our cessation of pandemic lockdown practice was a victory over Covid tyranny. We have put that horrid period far behind us. But objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear, and we aren’t concerned with preserving what little freedom we have. Your body is your property, you have a right to be secure in your property - that’s not granted by the Constitution, or government or other people, but is yours because of our recognition of Natural Law. From a religious perspective, God bestowed those rights, from a secular perspective all humans have that right for self preservation and self determination.

But recall this. Our state entities of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS), Michigan Department of Agriculture and Recreational Development (MDARD), Governor Whitmer and our school systems acted far beyond what the constraints of the law allowed during Covid, and even after losing in Michigan courts, the fines levied by these destructive agencies were never vacated.

With great irony, Michigan may enact laws that will further restrict our medical freedoms but the standards of compliance will be determined by the director of MDHHS alone. There is no public hearing, and there is no legislative oversight over these processes. And the governor has no bearing on the process either. At least with the CDC and FDA process there is a conference call where you may get to speak. But that’s not very comforting.

And in all of this the question that seems to be missed once again is if the vaccines work effectively, then why are we concerned with those who elect not to be injected? Your child is safe if they have their MMR. No, I don’t want a child to succumb to measles, but that is their parents choice.

What Do The Bills Entail

Let’s go through the bills, they are a bit confusing as they refer to other amendments of the Public health code 1978 PA 368 by amending section 9215 (MCL 333.9215) and others. These amendments to existing amendments make it difficult to assess what is impacted, and these are my observations and concerns. But as someone who values any form of liberty and medical freedom, you should be concerned that these bills are in different committees, making it murky as to what their effect will be. Some of these bills are interdependent, so whether that means it will be harder or easier to pass the entire bundle, it is hard to say.

And from a different perspective, it seems odd that one single bill can’t address all these points, as their goal is all the same:

• establish additional reporting mechanisms for schools and businesses that provide child care support

• increase vaccination compliance in school districts to 90% with respects maintaining up to date records

• force families with objections to request an exemption form in person and have the signature of that form witnessed by a public health official. The form is only provided after the parents sit through hearing about the risks of not vaccinating, in person. This is not a session with the school nurse. There is no online form you get and submit.

HB 6205

This bill requires that parents seeking a religious waiver schedule a meeting with a local public health official for an educational training session. This must be completed prior to obtaining any waiver form and the session must be conducted in person. Signing the form must be witnessed by the public health official. Parents will supply their religious beliefs and objections on the form, which is collected by MDHHS and supplied to the school along with the certificate. This bill is contingent on enacting HB6206.

As far as what the adjudication process is leading to granting the waiver, who presides over the decisions of the local public health official, and what is the process for appealing is not provided in this law. Is this a violation of the 1st amendment by compelling speech and ignoring religious practices?

But what is certain here is that you are asking for permission to refuse the shots.

HB 6206

The bill seeks to amend Section 1177 of the Revised School Code (MCL 380.1177). References to religious and philosophical objections have been removed. It will potentially eliminate the option for parents or guardians to claim religious or philosophical exemptions from mandatory vaccinations. While in subsequent sections of the HB 6205 a description is provided that collects the objection due to religious views, it seems startlingly that the language is being eliminated. This bill is contingent of HB 6205 passing.

I had to hunt through bill HB 6205 to find the section of the form that would record the religious exemption. So at a minimum it’s not clear whether religious exemptions are explicitly permitted by law. It just describes a form. And that is a problem - we all have read of rulings where judges ignored a section of the law.

Think about this as well. How many times have public officials stood behind the law that didn’t explicitly state the restraints for government action? Murky law means we are the losers.

HB 6207

This impacts schools. Schools must report immunization status of all Kindergarten and 7th graders, along with any student newly arrived at the district, to MDHHS twice a year. MDHSS then informs the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) of status of students without proper immunization records. There are two thresholds that must be met during the year: November 1st reports must be at 90% compliance and February reports must be 95%. Falling below the threshold will result in MDE withholding 5% of total state funding. This bill is contingent on HB 6205 and HB6206 passing.

Now do you have schools incentivized for ensuring the health of students, or are they acting in fear of losing a portion of their state budgets? And while not new, you have the schools managing personal health information, and aware of your religious beliefs. Are they audited for strict HIPAA compliance, do people in the office talk about you being right winger because you object to the Covid vaccine, and who overhears that conversation?

HB 6208

This bill affects all businesses that provide childcare support. All employees will be required to be vaccinated. Proof must be submitted to MDHHS and employer. Unlike HB 6205-7 this bill is NOT contingent on the others and will be in effect 90 days after it is enacted.

All guidelines for what those vaccinations are will be determined by MDHHS. Will that be Covid and Flu shots should Avian-flu fear take over? As I described, there is no legislative process to counter MDHHS. Flu shots are recommended by the CDC for children and adults. It would not be a stretch to see MDHHS altering their current guidelines to match.

HB 6209

While not contingent on other bills, HB 6209 establishes reporting criteria for childcare support businesses. For facilities with more than twelve children, records of employee and child vaccination rates must be maintained and posted on their website. The records are anonymized. The reports must include the total number of children enrolled at each level of care with the corresponding levels of vaccinations or the lack of immunization due to religious convictions or other objections. Paper versions of this information must be posted in the facility.

So let’s say you take your child to a facility with 15 kids, and the vaccination report says that there are 3 who are unvaccinated. Do parents cast their eyes upon who they may think has abstained? Does the childcare center now have an incentive to turn unvaccinated children away so that parents will remain assured that although their child is vaccinated, no additional threats exist?

Efficacy for the flu shot is anywhere between 30 to 50% depending on the strain of virus in circulation. What is accomplished if a worker or a child is vaccinated yet is a carrier and passes the flu on? Do the reports posted on websites halt the spread of infectious viruses?

Finally, now you are trusting yet ANOTHER entity with health information. Are these organizations subject to HIPAA audits now, and are there extra expenses for maintaining records and adhering to HIPAA standards?

HB 6210

This bill lays out the plans for MDHHS to collate information from local health departments and establishes targets and steps to decrease the number of vaccine exemptions below 5%.

The process consists of:

• Principals report vaccination rates and documentation for kindergarten and first graders

• MDHHS sets the threshold levels

• Vaccination clinics will be established by local health officials to “raise vaccination levels”

• Should areas still remain over the 5% threshold, the local health officers are required to submit an action plan for reducing the exemptions.

A list of each school in the area serviced by the local 18 health department with a total percentage of children who are 19 exempt from immunization under section 9215 that exceeds 5%, and a 20 description of the action that the local health department plans to take during the next year to reduce the total percentage of children who are exempt from immunization under section 9215 to below 5%.

So if you applied for an exemption, you will be approached to get immunized. So your permission to exercise your right to control what concoction is given to your child is temporary. As long as you are granted permission your child can attend school, but what happens if RSV vaccination is added to the list by MDHHS, is your waiver now invalid, and you have to go through the process again? What if you and your spouse both work and can’t schedule the time with the local health officer who is the only person in your region, and there are 20 other families who also object, will you be able to secure a waiver so your child can attend school or daycare?

SB 875

The Senate Bills, while similar to the House Bills, cover a different age range. SB 875 requires reporting for vaccination status of students entering 7th and 12th grades. There is also a year over year variance report required for a change in percent vaccinated. Unlike the House Bills, this bill states explicitly that MDHHS will adopt guidelines delineated in the immunization schedule recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC. This bill is only enacted when the companion bills SB 876 and 877 are passed.

So while the CDC offers guidelines, we have professionals who will enact those recommendations into law, and we do not have a mechanism in place where the MDHHS must hold a hearing or take the citizens’ views into consideration. Currently MDHHS does not require flu vaccines for school attendance. But according to this law they would change that practice, and a flu shot would be required should they deem it necessary.

SB 876

This bill echoes HB 6207 and HB 6210 with respect to the 90% verification threshold for reporting, but for 7th and 12th graders.

SB 877

This bill is very similar to HB 875 regarding required submission of immunization testing or exemption waivers. It is odd in that it also requires a vision test for kindergarten.

You Can Always Rely On The Courts

So far it is safe to say we have established that once these bills are enacted, you have a state health department that is out of reach from the legislators, and can now operate by whatever standards they wish to apply with respect to required vaccination. Does it matter if MDHHS adheres to CDC standards, are those standards enforceable by law? What is the process to alter those? We have no option here in Michigan to change the policy at the state level. No one filed a lawsuit against MDHHS for violating constitutional rights with the mask or distancing mandates. Our Michigan courts ruled that our governor could only enact emergency measures for 30 days, but MDHHS stepped in and continued on in the spirit of Whitmer unconstitutional acts.

Here is what members of the highest courts in our nation have stated regarding your rights to bodily autonomy and your speech when considering the constitutionality of vaccine mandates.

Justice Elena Kagan has expressed strong support for the constitutionality of vaccine mandates, particularly in the healthcare environment. In her view, public health agencies should determine policy, not courts. Does that sound like support for individual choice? In this case, Kagan made these remarks regarding the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) hearings for federal employees and Medicare. But is it only practice and whim that prevent some other authority from stating “If these vaccine standards are enforced at the federal level by health professionals in Medicare and Medicaid, it is not harmful or negligent for other institutions to not do the same”? Where are the checks and balances, where is our voice heard in the process?

Kagan was also under the impression that Covid was deadlier than the flu, yet even before the hearings it was evident that the death rate was less than 1%. How does this sit with you that someone of such prominence is so ignorant of what was common knowledge, and that her decision would outweigh your rights as a healthcare worker? Notice the contradiction here. Kagan states that the courts should defer to the expertise of the healthcare experts, yet on an individual basis a healthcare worker holding an opinion to the contrary of Kagan’s perception of what leading experts would recommend is void.

Now take into consideration recent statements Justice Kentanji Brown Jackon made regarding First Amendment rights versus governmental authority. On 3/18/2024 while hearing Murthy v. Missouri she stated:

I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when you're talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic

The government needs to be the arbiter of truth during unprecedented times.

And what if that government doesn’t have the time to listen to citizen’s responses? Getting your case heard by SCOTUS takes a long time, and when you reflect on our inability to do that in our state of Michigan today, tell me when your voice will be heard. Laws are considered Constitutional and binding until a court issues a contrary ruling opinion, but when the courts have such deference to unelected experts, we are cut out of the process. It’s not even law, it’s decree. During Covid we squealed because there were so many violations of our rights, and today we don’t notice the march of the same decision making process on a similar basis. But it is still capricious, and well out of our control. Especially after new laws lock in new vaccine mandates.

---

You can find the article on John Dickinson here:

Founders History: John Dickinson and Choosing Principles Over Public Opinion