How to fake a vaccination record? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 139 Old 04-04-2014, 08:38 AM
 
Leslie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Jajay,

In my state (in the US), there is no philosophical/contentious objection.  If you decline on religious grounds, M.G.L. 76 § 15 states that you are required to write a letter stating that "vaccines conflict with my sincere religious beliefs."  There are no forms in MA, just a letter that you write yourself.  Specifically, "no child whose parent or guardian states in writing that vaccination or immunization conflicts with his sincere religious beliefs shall be required to present said physician’s certificate in order to be admitted to school."

 

MA state law:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter76/Section15

 

If you live in a state without an option outside of a religious exemption, defining "religion" becomes important.  Thankfully, US vs. Seeger has done that for us and borrows a quote from Tillich's The Shaking of the Foundations, "and if that word [God] has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation."

 

My husband is a lawyer.  I'm not doing research anymore at this point because we're well-versed in what we have to do.  I'm not opposed to having him put it on his letterhead if anyone gives us a hard time.

 

In the US, there are 13 states which allow philosophical/contentious exemption, 48 which allow religious exemption (1 of the others will homeschool your child at their expense if you stand your ground), and all allow medical exemption.  I do not live in one of the 13.

 

My post was directed at the original writer who identified herself by using the same screen name on her blog.  You don't fake anything.  It's fraud.  Do it legally.

Turquesa and Taximom5 like this.
Leslie17 is offline  
#122 of 139 Old 04-04-2014, 10:13 PM
 
Jayjay2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Dear Taximom,

 

That is not true, and from my research, Conscientious Objection clearly does apply to immunization, as well as the military service, which is a completely different issue.

 

There is in fact, a form that you can use that you might not know about in order to object to immunization.

 

There is a website from the Department of Health in Texas which clearly explains about "Exemption from Immunization for Reasons of Conscience" which is nothing to do with the military.

 

The forms are up top date and are dated 2014.

 

I will post it below:-

 

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/IMMUNIZE/school/default.shtm

 

Jayjay

Taximom5 likes this.
Jayjay2014 is offline  
#123 of 139 Old 04-05-2014, 04:40 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Jayjay, thanks for posting that link! That is great for Texas residents! Unfortunately, it ONLY applies to residents of the State of Texas. None of the other 49 states are required to accept that form, and those states without philosophical exemptions will not. The laws regarding exemptions vary from state to state, with legislation under way in many states to eliminate current exemptions.
applejuice and Leslie17 like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#124 of 139 Old 04-05-2014, 12:02 PM
 
Leslie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The original poster lives in MA. So do we.
Leslie17 is offline  
#125 of 139 Old 04-06-2014, 12:28 AM
 
Jayjay2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi Taximom/ Leslie17,

 

I read somewhere that there are 20 states in the US that have such exemptions.  It looks as if MA is not one of the 20 unfortunately, however, there may well be others on this site reading through these posts who do live in one of those states and may not be aware that they can legally opt out of vaccines for their children. 

 

The article did not say which states have exemptions, at least we know that Texas does but whoever wishes to gain an exemption would have to check with their department of health to see if they have one.

 

There may be some other way around it and I wouldn't blame anyone who has to do whatever they have to do to protect their children.  I can imagine what the parents of autistic children might wish they had done differently.

 

I'm sure you are doing everything you can to change this injustice and I wish you all the luck in the world and hope you achieve it.  It seems ironic that MA would probably have the highest number of objectors, but this could work in your favour as well as you would have the numbers on your side.  More people are waking up to this every day.

 

Good luck with finding a resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jayjay2014 is offline  
#126 of 139 Old 04-07-2014, 07:19 AM
 
Leslie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think we may have some sort of miscommunication. You do not have to check with your health department as all laws are available online. I posted a link to my state. I'm required to write a one-sentence letter. That's all.

My comment to the original poster is that fraud is wrong. She can opt out with a religious exemption, regardless of whether or not she believes in God. She also self-identifies by using a unique screen name which allowed a tyrant ob/gyn to find her and repost her query on her blog.

I'm not looking for the "how tos" of exemptions. My husband is a lawyer. We're aware of how it works. My intent was to give the original poster the protocol so she could use it rather than do something illegal.
Taximom5 likes this.
Leslie17 is offline  
#127 of 139 Old 04-07-2014, 03:47 PM
 
Jayjay2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My point is that 20 states have exemptions for reasons of conscience so people can find their way to that information themselves if they know it is available, but sadly many people don't even know they have that right.

 

Saying you have religious reasons when you don't is still fraud, just a different kind of fraud. 

 

I think it's sad that people need to lie in order to obtain the freedom to make their own choices.

Jayjay2014 is offline  
#128 of 139 Old 04-07-2014, 06:02 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjay2014 View Post
 

My point is that 20 states have exemptions for reasons of conscience so people can find their way to that information themselves if they know it is available, but sadly many people don't even know they have that right.

 

Saying you have religious reasons when you don't is still fraud, just a different kind of fraud. 

 

I think it's sad that people need to lie in order to obtain the freedom to make their own choices.

 

You're right--many residents of the states that allow philosophical exemptions do not realize that they have that right. This is because of relentless messages from the local media, saying, "your child MUST have all their shots or they cannot attend school," which is blatantly untrue in those states.


Unfortunately, most residents of states that DON'T allow philosophical exemptions do not realize that that was a right that was quietly taken away.


I'm afraid that medical exemptions are headed the same way, as Paul Offit and Dorit Reiss are campaigning aggressively for the the right to sue unvaccinated people.

Taximom5 is online now  
#129 of 139 Old 04-07-2014, 08:19 PM
 
Jayjay2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi Taximom,

 

Yes, there is much misinformation by the media to scare or bully people into believing they have no rights in this.

 

Campaigning for the right to sue unvaccinated people may not be such a bad thing.  In a court situation, it would actually bring to light how little justification and evidence there is to support vaccination, much evidence of its harm and would open up a can of worms for the industry.

 

They would be leaving themselves wide open to cross examination, which they would do everything to avoid.  Go ahead, make our day.

applejuice likes this.
Jayjay2014 is offline  
#130 of 139 Old 04-08-2014, 07:33 AM
 
Leslie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjay2014 View Post
 

My point is that 20 states have exemptions for reasons of conscience so people can find their way to that information themselves if they know it is available, but sadly many people don't even know they have that right.

 

Saying you have religious reasons when you don't is still fraud, just a different kind of fraud. 

 

I think it's sad that people need to lie in order to obtain the freedom to make their own choices.


Yes, saying you have a religious reason when you don't is fraud.  However, the Supreme Court defined "religion" in 1965 in such a way that one need not believe in any god to claim they have religious beliefs.  In US vs. Seeger, they quote Tillich, and state that this is the definition of "religion":

 

"And if that word [God] has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God . . . ." Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations 57 (1948)

 

Using this definition, a parent who takes their vaccine stance "seriously, without any reservation," has a legal religious exemption.  They are not required to explain their beliefs except in one state whose law is unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, I don't live in that state, so it's not a war I can take on (although I would if I needed to).

 

This is the part that most people don't know.  They assume "religion" has to include that their individual sect and their scripture is opposed to vaccines, when in reality an individual's religious beliefs are held in high regard in the US, regardless of the tenets of those beliefs (god or not).

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
Leslie17 is offline  
#131 of 139 Old 04-08-2014, 07:36 AM
 
Leslie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I read the handbook for my stepchildren's school.  It goes as far as to quote MGL 76 and state that vaccines are required, but eliminates the part about exemptions.  Amazing.

applejuice likes this.
Leslie17 is offline  
#132 of 139 Old 04-08-2014, 07:41 AM
 
Leslie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

That's cute... They could never prove that an unvaccinated individual gave someone an illness.  A person can be a carrier of a disease without ever exhibiting symptoms.  In addition, medical information is protected.  Unless a person is announcing their vaccination status, there would be no way to identify them.  In the case of religious exemptions, suing someone over their religious beliefs is discrimination and also violates the US Constitution as no religion may be given preference over another.  Good luck to them.  I hope my husband gets one of those cases.  I'd go watch for the entertainment value.

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
Leslie17 is offline  
#133 of 139 Old 04-08-2014, 11:08 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjay2014 View Post
 

Campaigning for the right to sue unvaccinated people may not be such a bad thing.  In a court situation, it would actually bring to light how little justification and evidence there is to support vaccination, much evidence of its harm and would open up a can of worms for the industry.

 

They would be leaving themselves wide open to cross examination, which they would do everything to avoid.  Go ahead, make our day.

 

Other than the extreme stress to the innocent people involved, I agree having this in regular court would probably be a good thing overall. "Vaccine Court" seals the records, and does not have the same rules of evidence as normal courts.

applejuice and swede like this.
ma2two is offline  
#134 of 139 Old 04-08-2014, 03:10 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

 

Other than the extreme stress to the innocent people involved, I agree having this in regular court would probably be a good thing overall. "Vaccine Court" seals the records, and does not have the same rules of evidence as normal courts.

Except it would entirely depend on what "side" the judge and jury are on.

 

At this point, it would be very naive to expect a fair trial from objective judge and jury.

applejuice and rachelsmama like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#135 of 139 Old 04-08-2014, 04:45 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leslie17 View Post

Jajay,
In my state (in the US), there is no philosophical/contentious objection.  If you decline on religious grounds, M.G.L. 76 § 15 states that you are required to write a letter stating that "vaccines conflict with my sincere religious beliefs."  There are no forms in MA, just a letter that you write yourself.  Specifically, "no child whose parent or guardian states in writing that vaccination or immunization conflicts with his sincere religious beliefs shall be required to present said physician’s certificate in order to be admitted to school."

MA state law:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter76/Section15

If you live in a state without an option outside of a religious exemption, defining "religion" becomes important.  Thankfully, US vs. Seeger has done that for us and borrows a quote from Tillich's The Shaking of the Foundations, "and if that word [God] has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation."

My husband is a lawyer.  I'm not doing research anymore at this point because we're well-versed in what we have to do.  I'm not opposed to having him put it on his letterhead if anyone gives us a hard time.

In the US, there are 13 states which allow philosophical/contentious exemption, 48 which allow religious exemption (1 of the others will homeschool your child at their expense if you stand your ground), and all allow medical exemption.  I do not live in one of the 13.

My post was directed at the original writer who identified herself by using the same screen name on her blog.  You don't fake anything.  It's fraud.  Do it legally.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this interesting info! I looked up the US v Tillich case and . . . wow. I could really get into the off-topic Lalaland of conscientious objections to wars and vaccines, sacrifices for "freedom" vs. the Herd, etc. (Forgive the cynicism of putting quotes around "freedom." The past two presidential administrations have a lot of blood on their hands, and I don't feel any freer).

Anyway, didn't a federal court in Wyoming rule that the state couldn't require membership to an organized religion in order to claim and exemption?

Also, is what the coercionists say true about there being no constitutional precedent for a religious exemption to vaccines? It just seems that there are more apples and oranges than I can count between smallpox and Jacobsen v. Massachusetts . . . . and unelected bureaucrats mandating Hep B vaccination-with no manufacturer liability--for admission to kindergarten.

You don't have to answer. I don't expect a pro-bono education from your hubby. winky.gif But it's something that's long held my curiosity.
applejuice likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#136 of 139 Old 04-08-2014, 05:00 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjay2014 View Post

Hi Taximom,

Yes, there is much misinformation by the media to scare or bully people into believing they have no rights in this.

Campaigning for the right to sue unvaccinated people may not be such a bad thing.  In a court situation, it would actually bring to light how little justification and evidence there is to support vaccination, much evidence of its harm and would open up a can of worms for the industry.

They would be leaving themselves wide open to cross examination, which they would do everything to avoid.  Go ahead, make our day.

I don't share your optimism. It's dangerous to assume that all judges and juries and lawyers all operate on logic and reason. My late grandmother always said, " If you want justice, stay out of the courts. If you want health, stay away from the doctor."
applejuice and Taximom5 like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#137 of 139 Old 04-09-2014, 09:11 AM
 
Leslie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes, but one state's law (even case law) is not another's. We had a law change in MA in 1971, which prevented religious exemptions from being limited to those who participate in a "bona fide" religion. New York seems to be the only remaining state that makes people provide scriptural support. If it were me, I'd fight it, but then again I have a lawyer readily available, and I do have an actual religious exemption.

It's true; there is no constitutional preclusion from vaccine exemptions. The constitution is a federal document and vaccine requirements are governed by state law. Jacobsen was MA state, and referred to an epidemic rather than school entrance. The constitution Does prevent the government from establishing a religion, which means that we have the freedom to practice as we wish provided we are not breaking a law that applies to all citizens (like Native Americans who use peyote in their rituals). If not for the fact that children are mandated to receive an education, laws could be created requiring them to be vaccinated. A law like that would raise the question, "or what?" There would be so many refusers that it wouldn't make sense to do that because it's not enforceable. Beside that, state cases like Yoder establish that religious rights are held dear.

My statements are not hubby's statements. He sometimes shows me where to find things, but I'll let his words be his words. smile.gif We talk about these things a Lot, but I'll never quote him unless he's ok going on record.
applejuice and Turquesa like this.
Leslie17 is offline  
#138 of 139 Old 04-10-2014, 09:12 PM
 
Viola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nevada
Posts: 23,380
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

I am reopening this thread.  I have removed some of the posts if they were in violation of the User Agreement which prohibits name calling.  Also, please to follow the guidelines on not listed in the forum description. 

Quote:
Support only: If you're not vaccinating or seriously considering not vaccinating, this is your forum. This forum will host topics that are about dealing with issues when choosing to not vaccinate.

 

Needing to find information about waivers or exemptions falls within the limits of what can be discussed here.  However, Mothering will not host discussions on how to falsify documents. 

LitMom likes this.
Viola is online now  
#139 of 139 Old 04-10-2014, 10:33 PM
 
Jayjay2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

If they didn't have a reason to stay out of real courts, they wouldn't have set up their own court for vaccination injuries and they wouldn't have refused to produce vaccines if they could be sued in the normal way.  THAT is how badly they want to stay away from the court system and all this campaigning to sue unvaccinated people is just another media stunt to scare people into vaccinating.

applejuice likes this.
Jayjay2014 is offline  
Reply

Tags
Vaccinations

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off