policy change in New Mexico - Page 3

[Peggy O'Mara]

Originally Posted by 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.

The law does call for an exemption based on "deeply held personal beliefs" and conscientious objection. I'm no lawyer, but your statement could be framed more in this context, such as "My deeply held personal beliefs conscientiously object to the injection of a foreign substance into my bloodstream or the bloodstream of my children." I would leave out the opinion and just focus on what you believe in as simple and yet as vague a way as possible. Use the words from the law. Good luck!

[Peggy O'Mara]

Originally Posted by 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.

 

I just emailed with Dawn Richardson from NVIC. They are on this too and would like us to start a group here. More on that soon. They want to work with key legislators. Let's identify who they would be. I suggest Brian Egolf and Peter Wirth in Santa Fe.

[snowhaven]

I definitely would like to hear more.  Thank you for contacting NVIC.

[halo]

I know Rep Jim Hall (Dist 43, Los Alamos) is asking questions as well. On behalf of an MD in Sierra Los Pinos. I would suggest getting as many legislators hopping as possible. But understand that some of them might not have a job come Nov.

Sen Richard Martinez is also interested. The first thing out of his mouth when I spoke to him yesterday was about the rights of parents to make decisions for their children.

(I have been working on a different bill since 2007, and I am more than a little bit concerned about what is going to happen in Nov and Jan. One if the main committees I have to go through—SPAC—has only 2 of its 8 members still running for re-election. I'm sort of holding my breath right now.)

[rmul]

Hi all, I just talked to Michael Ruble at the state health dept. and he said that I can resubmit another form with different wording and that would be faster than appealing.  So now that thanks to all of you I know what the magic words to use are (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.)  I will be resubmitting the form with this statement and will hope for the best this time.  Daniel Freeman I suggest to you that you too resubmit a form using these words and hopefully we will all be OK.  I appreciate all the help and support on this site.  It is nice to know that I am not alone in this issue.

[halo]

please consider joining (or taking) the conversation over at this google group. (esp for those who do not want to join facebook.)

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/new-mexico-parental-rights

[halo]

Originally Posted by 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.”

esqui88,

you seem fairly knowledgeable about this. i am wondering who you are and how you know so much? also, can you please join us on the google group? 

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/new-mexico-parental-rights

[Peggy O'Mara]

Esqui88, thanks so much for that detailed information. I have been struggling with understanding what happened and did not realize that there had been a judicial interpretation. Still, we do have the precedent, 30 years by my count, of accepting "deeply held personal beliefs," that is philosophical reasons for religious exemptions. How do you thing that this plays legally?

[Shanesmom]

Great thread. I'm learning so much

[Esqui88]

I am having trouble responding to private messages with this information, so I thought I would just post it.

Here are some legislative sources for review:

1.  NM Attorney General's Opinion (No. 75-69) dated December 8, 1975, pages 183-186

2.  Section 12-3-4.2, New Mexico Statute Annotated (NMSA) 1953

3.  Section 24-5-3, NMSA 1978

4.  7 New Mexico Administrated Code (NMAC) 7.5.3.8

I think by googling any one of these, you should be able to download and copies these.

[Esqui88]

I am having trouble responding to private messages with this information, so I thought I would just post it.

Here are some legislative sources for review:

1.  NM Attorney General's Opinion (No. 75-69) dated December 8, 1975, pages 183-186

2.  Section 12-3-4.2, New Mexico Statute Annotated (NMSA) 1953

3.  Section 24-5-3, NMSA 1978

4.  7 New Mexico Administrated Code (NMAC) 7.5.3.8

I think by googling any one of these, you should be able to download and copies these.

[Peggy O'Mara]

Just posted this blog today on Vaccine Exemptions Under Attack. It puts what's happening in NM into a national context.