policy change in New Mexico - Page 2

[halo]

@esqui88,

i have a problem with the idea that "originally the legislators believed that only people with religious reasons would use the form to file a request for exemption." a number of years ago when i first started filing exemptions, it was the state worker who told me (when i noticed and mentioned that the exemption form was religious) "they are one in the same." and there are other parts of the statutes and regs that refer to "conscientious objection." if you read the part that talks about the state's 60 days to approve or deny, it is right there, the state admits and accepts "conscientious objections." 

[Taximom5]

Is this form outdated?  http://www.immunizenm.org/documents/NMIZExemption8-7-12.pdf

It states:

New Mexico Immunization Exemption Law (24-5-3):

Any minor child through his parent or guardian may file with the health authority charged with the duty of enforcing the immunization laws:

(1) A certificate of a duly licensed physician stating that the physical condition of the child is such that immunization would seriously endanger the life or health of the child; or

(2) Affidavits or written affirmation from an officer of a recognized religious denomination that such child’s parents or guardians are bona fide members of a denomination whose religious teaching requires reliance upon prayer or spiritual means alone for healing;

(3) Affidavits or written affirmation from his parent or legal guardian that his religious beliefs, held either individually or jointly with others, do not permit the administration of vaccine or other immunizing agent.

NMAC 7.5.3: “Within sixty (60) days of receipt of a certificate of conscientious objection to immunization, the director of the public health division or the designee shall review the certificate to determine whether the certificate has been duly completed and notarized. The public health division shall investigate as may be appropriate to ascertain that the exemption is a bona fide claim of religious beliefs and practices.

Sorry if that's already been mentioned--I didn't read the whole thread--just running out the door!

[Turquesa]

Halo (or anyone else), has NM always been allowed to serve as a religious inquisitor into peoples' beliefs? Amendment Numero Uno guarantees freedom of religion, period. It says nothing about freedom of religion only if the State approves of your beliefs. Hopefully this gets challenged as it was successfully challenged in WY.

Technically speaking, there really very little difference between religious and philosophical beliefs because either way, you're acting on your conscience. My personal sense of right-and-wrong comes from a higher power. The only difference is that in states allowing only religious exemptions, atheists and agnostics are not allowed to act on their consciences.

[halo]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

Halo (or anyone else), has NM always been allowed to serve as a religious inquisitor into peoples' beliefs? Amendment Numero Uno guarantees freedom of religion, period. It says nothing about freedom of religion only if the State approves of your beliefs. Hopefully this gets challenged as it was successfully challenged in WY.
Technically speaking, there really very little difference between religious and philosophical beliefs because either way, you're acting on your conscience. My personal sense of right-and-wrong comes from a higher power. The only difference is that in states allowing only religious exemptions, atheists and agnostics are not allowed to act on their consciences.

i disagree that atheists and agnostics are not being allowed to act on their consciences. as someone who does not believe in jesus and doubts the existence of god, we just have to be willing to call what we believe a religious belief. i don't have a problem doing that. the statement i really want to make would definitely get me in trouble, but it basically says, "my child should be exempted from your vaccinations because we don't believe in the religion of medicine."

as for the history of NM, i have no idea. i am a transplant. as a US citizen, the 1st amendment applies to me as to everyone else. the fact of the matter is, the state is approving a statement that is so vague as to contain no actual religion in it. "my religious beliefs held either individually or jointly with others." and when people try to get too specific, their requests are rejected. plus, the state isn't approving or not approving your religious choice, only your statement. make them happy, and they don't care what you do.

the supreme court actually had a ruling that atheism and agnosticism do count as religions for this purpose.

[halo]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Is this form outdated?  http://www.immunizenm.org/documents/NMIZExemption8-7-12.pdf

no, that is the current form. and yes, you are correct, the law has not changed and so long as you are willing to swear to the statement you write down, and it makes the state happy in its vagueness, then you are good to go.

and the statement that they have accepted is basically their own words stated back to them. use these words:

As the parent of _______, my religious beliefs, held either individually or jointly with others, do not permit the administration of vaccine or other immunizing agent.

[gracemamma]

Thanks for all the great info, folks!  Super helpful! I was also shocked at the difference in the form this year, though I'm reassured to hear this is not based on a change in law. Yet.

Can anyone share how long it took to get their approval back by mail?  I remember last years took just a couple days but I'm a bit concerned about that 60 days on the form and am wondering whether to drive from ABQ to Santa Fe to speed up the process. Hearing your experiences would help this alot. Thanks!!!

[Esqui88]

To be quite honest, the statute governing the immunization laws is poorly written (one of the worst I have seen), and so the legislators were not really thinking when they used the term conscientious objectors.  The opinion of the Attorney General, from 1975, which is integrated into the NMCA (NM Codes Annontated) which talks about the procedures for the application of the statute, clearly states that the legislators did not consider non-religious beliefs as a grounds for exempting.  I believe they meant to use the term "conscientious objection" as it applied in 1975.  At that point, I think they should have more accurately stated in the statute "conscientious objectors based on religious grounds" as that term was meant nearly 40 years ago.  When one spoke of "conscientious objectors" to the Vietnam War, for example, one immediately thought of Quakers, or other non-violent denominations - but clearly one thought of a religious basis, not as one thinks of it now.

If the legislators meant for there to be a personal, philosophical or conscientious objectors exemption, they would have created a means for that group of individuals to be able to exempt from the law.  They did not.  The AG's opinion stated:

"The legislative intent of the Certificate of Exemption corresponded to those who shared a religious belief, but were not able to obtain the required affidavit from an officer of a church.  The Certificate of Exemption form was created to assist those with religious beliefs enabling them to file an exemption with the state.

While definitions of moral belief or spiritual persuasion or religious denomination are necessarily vague and cannot be reduced to precise language, the language of Section 12-4-4.3 is clear and unambiguous in that it requires for exemption an affidavit from an officer of a recognized religious denomination.  Absent any ambiguity, there is no room for construction and the statement should be given effect as written. State v. Herrera, 86 N.M. 134, 520 P.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1974).  It would appear, therefore, that the religious exemption may be granted ONLY [emphasis added] upon the filing of the described affidavit [from an officer of a church.]  A statement by parents of a personal religious and/or moral convictions would not conform to the explicit requirements of Section 12-3-4-3.”

[CostillaMommy]

It took me about 3 weeks to get the response and the school accepted this time frame. Unfortunately, I did not write what was stated here and borrowed some info off of another site that makes me sound like a religious nut. Still, it was approved and I can accept the weird looks until I fill it out again next year:)
 

[halo]

@  gracemamma, i'm up in los alamos and it took about a week. they say they have 60 days, but i've never heard of it taking that long. and they have changed the rules on walking it in, too. i used to walk mine in and they would do it one the spot, but now if you walk it in, you have to put it in a box and they will mail it back to you. so that won't necessarily speed it up any. :/

[rmul]

I just got a rejection of my religious exemption for vaccination in the mail.  My son is in the 10th grade and this has never happened before.  On my form that was rejected I wrote, " The lord God has given us a sacred body temple with the decree that we shall not defile that body temple with impure acts, thoughts, words, or deeds.  This places upon us the sacred trust of caring for our body temple by not ingesting or injecting impurities into our bodies." 

I am shocked that this was not accepted and now I have to appeal.  Does any one have any advice on what I should state in the appeal??  Also I am wondering if there are any lawsuits brewing.  This seems ripe for a class action lawsuit that is denying me my religious freedom.

[emmy526]

this woman might be able to advise you over the phone...she is an atty who specializes in religious exemptions

Patricia Finn Attorney

Originally Posted by rmul 

I just got a rejection of my religious exemption for vaccination in the mail.  My son is in the 10th grade and this has never happened before.  On my form that was rejected I wrote, " The lord God has given us a sacred body temple with the decree that we shall not defile that body temple with impure acts, thoughts, words, or deeds.  This places upon us the sacred trust of caring for our body temple by not ingesting or injecting impurities into our bodies." 

I am shocked that this was not accepted and now I have to appeal.  Does any one have any advice on what I should state in the appeal??  Also I am wondering if there are any lawsuits brewing.  This seems ripe for a class action lawsuit that is denying me my religious freedom.

[Taximom5]

Rmul, you might want to start a new thread so that more people can see your question.

Good luck!

[rmul]

Thank you for this name.  I will see if she can help me and I will pass on any info. I get about the appeal process.

[gracemamma]

Thanks for your help on timeframes, Halo and CostillaMommy! Will just mail it then and save the gas! I used the wording recommended here so hoping all will be ok. So sad to hear about some of the rejections received by memebers here.

[Peggy O'Mara]

I've been posting on another thread about this, so glad to find you. Thank you, Halo. And, thank you, Carol Miller. Carol is one of the original NM pioneers for vaccine choice. 

I've been looking into this and plan to blog about it. I called Kenny Vigil at the Dept of Health yesterday and am going to send questions he says he will have answered by those who know about the exemption policy. Let me know your questions.

While it's true that NM has only religious and medical exemptions, the state has been included as one that has philosophical exemptions because the state has a precedent of accepting exemptions based on a parent's conscientious objection to vaccines, their closely held personal beliefs. Here's the law from 1996, updated 2001:

 " B.           Exemption by certification of religious objection: A parent or guardian who cannot obtain an affidavit from an officer of a recognized denomination as described in Section 7-1 [sic], but whose religious beliefs, held either individually or jointly with others, do not permit the administration of vaccine or other immunizing agents, may apply for an exemption from immunization by submitting a certificate of conscientious objection to immunization."

Is there a more updated law than this? Was the law changed and we missed it? I used the philosophical exemption form from the NM Health Department from 1980 through 2000 so there is a long precedent of accepting conscientious objection and personally held beliefs in NM.

Carol, do you know if the law was changed? If not, then it seems that the Health Department is overreaching their authority.

I think it's a good idea to talk to the Ombudsman. I'm so glad there is a FB page. And, I'm thinking we could bring this to Brian Egoff's attention and see what he can do.

It's important that we follow through on keeping our rights here. I would suggest using words like conscientious objection and closely held beliefs and keeping it simple in one's statement.

[Peggy O'Mara]

I'm happy to host a meeting at my house in Santa Fe to make plans if we need that. You're right, Halo, if there is no change in the law and no public comment on the change in interpretation and a precedent for accepting closely held personal beliefs as religious beliefs, then the Health Department is just trying to intimidate us. No way!!

[Daniel Freeman]

       I just received a denial of my exemption form today.  I did not want to make a statement that would be against our true beliefs.  Neither I nor my children have ever been immunized.  I stated on the form "I do not trust the safety of vaccines and believe that the introduction of foreign substances into the bloodstream is a misinformed attempt to thwart the intelligence of nature."  

      At this point I realize that I should have considered another statement that might have had better success being approved but I feel that conscientious  objection is as valid a reason as religious beliefs.  Now however, I need to respond in a way that I know will work. I'm not going to be bullied into doing something that I feel may have disastrous effects on my child. We are homeschooling my son but my daughter is enjoying and doing well in our small local school, I would hate to have to withdraw her for something so silly.

[snowhaven]

RMUL - I'm shocked that you got a denial, particularly since it appears that others received approval by just repeating the statement that is already on the form.  I pray every night about this entire vaccination issue - it has gotten so out of hand.

You might want to contact:

National Vaccine Information Center
407 Church Street, Suite H, Vienna, VA 22180
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

They might be able to help you.

 

[halo]

as time goes by, the state seems to be fairly inconsistent with what it is allowing as reason to exempt.

i've heard of a muslim being denied (i don't know what her exact statement was).

I've heard of christians being denied because they use an "aborted fetal tissue = promoting abortion" reason, which shocks me to the ground that the state would deny that one.

and anything that they seem to perceive as a statement of YOUR choice seems to get denied. (can't tell you how offended i am that the state doesn't consider me smart enough to make this decision for my child. it has to be codified by either an MD or it has to be out of my hands because of religion. grrrrrrr.)

@daniel freeman, nice to finally "meet" another fully grown adult (look at that, we *can* survive without vaccines!) who has never been vax'd. i joke that my parents were on the cutting edge. ;) 

[halo]

a thought occurs to me . . . 

there is a chance that we could actually get a bill introduced to actually allow for a conscientious objection. the only thing i'd warn about is that you will get a MAJOR fight on your hands from the Department of Health. they will be at *every* committee meeting to stand up and say no. you would have to have overwhelming numbers in support to get it done. 

and you might keep an eye on the bills that are introduced in January. there could very likely be something about this in the coming session.

(i've been to the legislature a few times trying to get a bill of my own passed. and it is in DOH territory, that's how i know that they'll be there for every committee. and they are getting paid to be there, so they will wait the whole day and into the night if necessary.)