|
|
|
Parents and health officials squared off last week in Topeka over a proposed bill that would allow parents greater freedom over the vaccines their children receive.
If approved, House Bill 2094 would allow parents to refuse to immunize their children on conscientious grounds, adding another exemption to the current religious and medical objections acknowledged by the state.
Connie Newcome, an Inman resident who has lobbied committee members in favor of the bill from home through letters, says the issue of vaccination is one of personal liberties more than public health.
“This is not an anti-vaccine bill,” Newcome said. “It’s about a basic human freedom that we feel parents should be able to make.”
Newcome, who maintains a mailing list of more than 800 people across Kansas and elsewhere in the United States, says pushback against mandated immunization is growing throughout the country. In addition to the 48 states that allow parents to refuse immunization on some religious grounds, 20 allow parents to shield their children on philosophical grounds.
According to Newcome, the passage of HR 2094 would simply carry Kansas into this group, one which, according to bill proponents, is more respectful of parents’ rights and informed consent.
“This would be a one-sentence bill,” Newcome said. “This wouldn’t be a big deal. But the pro-vaccine crowd is very powerful ... it’s a David versus Goliath, or many Goliaths, in this case.”
Healthy opposition
Yet that Goliath, who Newcome also referred to as “Big Pharmaceutical,” seems to be comprised more of scholars, school nurses and county health officials than the executives of GlaskoSmithKline or Pfizer. They do not see any need for a philosophical objection clause, arguing both that mandated immunization is within the bounds of the state and federal constitutions and that allowing even a handful of additional nonimmunized children into schools could jeopardize a successful vaccination system.
Fern Hess, McPherson County Health Department administrator, who attended last week’s hearing, said that HB 2094 faces almost unanimous disapproval from health care professionals.
“Those of us who are in the medical community and public heath were united in our opposition,” Hess said.
Strength through unity
Hess did not provide testimony at last week’s hearing, instead allowing the county to be represented by the Kansas Association of Local Health Departments. That organization is firmly against HB 2094, arguing in its testimony that the claims made by the bill’s proponents are false.
Of particular importance, according to KALHD’s comments last week, is the stability of herd immunity — the process of providing relative safety to a minority of nonimmunized individuals by vaccinating the majority of the group. Advocates of HR 2094 say that herd immunity is a myth, and that children carry live diseases into schools through their vaccinations, putting any “herd” at risk. They also contend that immunization forces those children who have some sort of adverse reaction to the vaccine to suffer with lifelong health issues rather than a three- or four-day bout with a relatively harmless — although quite uncomfortable — sickness.
On Wednesday the opposition countered with statements in support of herd immunity, a concept accepted without question in most medical circles.
“A vaccination rate of 75 percent to 95 percent is necessary to achieve herd immunity and realize the benefits thereof” such as reducing the frequency of disease outbreaks, said Michelle Ponce, speaking on behalf of the KALHD. “If we stop vaccinating or if we allow vaccination rates to fall below effective levels, we will see the incidence of these preventable diseases increase. We have made great progress toward eliminating these diseases, but once we allow vaccination rates to fall, more people will be infected, and we will lose the progress we have achieved.”
Parents and health officials squared off last week in Topeka over a proposed bill that would allow parents greater freedom over the vaccines their children receive.
If approved, House Bill 2094 would allow parents to refuse to immunize their children on conscientious grounds, adding another exemption to the current religious and medical objections acknowledged by the state.
Connie Newcome, an Inman resident who has lobbied committee members in favor of the bill from home through letters, says the issue of vaccination is one of personal liberties more than public health.
“This is not an anti-vaccine bill,” Newcome said. “It’s about a basic human freedom that we feel parents should be able to make.”
Newcome, who maintains a mailing list of more than 800 people across Kansas and elsewhere in the United States, says pushback against mandated immunization is growing throughout the country. In addition to the 48 states that allow parents to refuse immunization on some religious grounds, 20 allow parents to shield their children on philosophical grounds.
According to Newcome, the passage of HR 2094 would simply carry Kansas into this group, one which, according to bill proponents, is more respectful of parents’ rights and informed consent.
“This would be a one-sentence bill,” Newcome said. “This wouldn’t be a big deal. But the pro-vaccine crowd is very powerful ... it’s a David versus Goliath, or many Goliaths, in this case.”
Healthy opposition
Yet that Goliath, who Newcome also referred to as “Big Pharmaceutical,” seems to be comprised more of scholars, school nurses and county health officials than the executives of GlaskoSmithKline or Pfizer. They do not see any need for a philosophical objection clause, arguing both that mandated immunization is within the bounds of the state and federal constitutions and that allowing even a handful of additional nonimmunized children into schools could jeopardize a successful vaccination system.
Fern Hess, McPherson County Health Department administrator, who attended last week’s hearing, said that HB 2094 faces almost unanimous disapproval from health care professionals.
“Those of us who are in the medical community and public heath were united in our opposition,” Hess said.
Strength through unity
Hess did not provide testimony at last week’s hearing, instead allowing the county to be represented by the Kansas Association of Local Health Departments. That organization is firmly against HB 2094, arguing in its testimony that the claims made by the bill’s proponents are false.
Of particular importance, according to KALHD’s comments last week, is the stability of herd immunity — the process of providing relative safety to a minority of nonimmunized individuals by vaccinating the majority of the group. Advocates of HR 2094 say that herd immunity is a myth, and that children carry live diseases into schools through their vaccinations, putting any “herd” at risk. They also contend that immunization forces those children who have some sort of adverse reaction to the vaccine to suffer with lifelong health issues rather than a three- or four-day bout with a relatively harmless — although quite uncomfortable — sickness.
On Wednesday the opposition countered with statements in support of herd immunity, a concept accepted without question in most medical circles.
“A vaccination rate of 75 percent to 95 percent is necessary to achieve herd immunity and realize the benefits thereof” such as reducing the frequency of disease outbreaks, said Michelle Ponce, speaking on behalf of the KALHD. “If we stop vaccinating or if we allow vaccination rates to fall below effective levels, we will see the incidence of these preventable diseases increase. We have made great progress toward eliminating these diseases, but once we allow vaccination rates to fall, more people will be infected, and we will lose the progress we have achieved.”
Immunizing McPherson County
Hess said that, so far, McPherson County has not been host to strong arguments either for or against mandated immunization. An average of 1,450 local children under the age of 18 are immunized each year with few people seeking permission to keep their kids nonimmunized.
Still, Jane Radatz, school nurse at McPherson High School and Roosevelt Elementary School, said that even USD 418 knowingly has students still attending classes with incomplete immunization histories.
“We’re constantly working on it,” she said. “The state sends us new requirements every year, and we get new students all the time. We just work with them to try and get everyone immunized.”
Radatz said that the school district sends notices in the spring to the parents of students who do not have immunizations required for their next grade. Those notices often go unfulfilled, and while the district has the authority to remove nonimmunized children from McPherson schools, Radatz said that she and other officials try to work with parents rather than keeping students from their studies.
Wednesday’s hearing ended without action by the Health and Human Services Committee, and nothing has been done to suggest HB 2094 will proceed to the full house for a vote.
While Newcome said that the bill was likely dead, she said that the fight for informed consent in Kansas is far from over, and that she and other concerned parents would continue lobbying state legislators for support.
