Last year, the Health Care Freedom Amendment (HCFA) passed both houses of the Wyoming Legislature with greater than 2/3 majority, the requirement to send a constitutional amendment to the people of Wyoming. The amendment will be on the November 2012 ballot and, given Wyoming’s stance on Obamacare, will probably beat Ohio’s recent passage rate for its own HCFA. But just one year after the HCFA came out of Legislature, a new bill contradicts it.
Wyoming’s HCFA went through a long political process to reach ratification. It reads as follows:
(a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.
(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.
(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.
(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.
Part (c) is the most dangerous portion of the HCFA because it gives the legislature the power to abridge health care freedom, but it is as cautious as possible against governmental infringement: legislative restrictions must be both reasonable and necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people. (For a full analysis of the HCFA, see my Liberty Brief from last May.)
Although the HCFA has not yet been ratified by the people, the same Wyoming Legislature that passed it with 2/3 majorities last year makes up this year’s Budget Session. Alas, one bill, Senate File 54 (SF54), would go against the purpose of the HCFA, and if justified under section (c) could work to nullify the HCFA in its entirety.
SF54 would require any college student in Wyoming to be vaccinated against meningococcal meningitis in order to attend. The only exceptions are for religious objection or medical “contraindication” (i.e., an allergy to vaccines). When introducing the bill, Senator Bill Landen stated that this is necessary because Wyoming colleges—the University of Wyoming in particular—draw students from many states and foreign countries. This, he believes, makes colleges ripe for an outbreak.
Meningococcal meningitis is a serious disease, and is contagious. However, this concern cannot trump health care freedom or the HCFA. From 2001-2011, there were only 26 reported cases of the disease in Wyoming, or an average of 2-3 per year. (For comparison, in 2010 two people were killed by lightning here in Wyoming.) According to the Centers for Disease Control, meningococcal vaccines “do not prevent all cases.” So, this law is far from necessary to protect the health and general welfare of Wyomingites, and it is also not reasonable. If it were reasonable and necessary, just about any possible scenario of disease would justify forcing immunizations (or putting individuals in a position where they have to comply or sacrifice something like education).
Section (c) of the HCFA must be reserved for serious public health concerns. If an outbreak of meningococcal meningitis (or another terrible disease) were to occur, it would be within the state’s police power to quarantine individuals or groups and immunize exposed individuals to protect the populace. What the state may not do under the HCFA is attempt to address every health concern before it’s actually a concern: that is, unfortunately, SF54 in a nutshell.
A similar bill to SF54 was introduced last year and failed 8-22 in the Senate. This year, however, instead of appropriating tax money, the bill “merely” forces students to get the vaccine, adding to the already high cost of education. Hopefully, with the HCFA in mind, SF54 gets the same reception as last year.
You wrote a great article.
Mandated vaccine legislation needs to be defeated. Health freedom means getting to make your own health decisions without coercion by the government or anyone else. No one should be required to get vaccinated with a vaccine that has more potential to harm than does the disease you are trying to prevent.
SF 54 has two exemptions that a few students would use, but what about those who do not fit into either of these categories? Do they just have to take it even though they don’t want it?
If a student has an exemption and there is an outbreak of meningitis on campus, what happens to him when he is barred from classes and from labs? Is he reimbursed for all his expenses, including room and board, and other college costs, for the semester that he would likely fail due to missing a portion of it?
SF 54 mandates a vaccine to college students when there is not a large threat of the disease in our state. Most students would rather use a healthy immune system to keep meningitis at bay than to be forced to take a vaccine that has questionable efficacy, costs over $100 per dose, and has very serious potential side effects that are much more common than is the actual disease. See the 2011 report by Dr. Paul G. King, PhD, found at
called “The Non-cost-effective Vaccination Program for Neisseria Meningitidis, and Other Vaccination-Program Concerns and Suggestions.”
This is taken from a footnote in Dr. King’s Table 3 about adverse reactions to the Menactra vaccine, in his report:
“2. Based on the CDC’s reported claims (see: ), the one-dose program is currently, in 2010 with a reviewer-projected 68% uptake in 2010, saves 9 lives from the disease or about 90 clinical cases of meningococcal meningitis at a cost of up to 64 meningococcal-vaccine-associated deaths from severe adverse reactions of which only 6, or fewer, are actually reported to VAERS. Even were there 100% reporting in VAERS, the CDC’s reported 9 lives saved from the disease must be offset by 7-8 vaccination-associated deaths, the 18-19 cases of permanent disability, and the 35-36 life-threatening reactions and the costs associated therewith.”
All three current meningitis vaccines have not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential. Two (Menactra and Menomune) of the three have not been evaluated for impairment of fertility.
For sources, please contact me.
~Susan Pearce, co-founder
Wyoming Vaccine Information Network
Founded April 2001
spearce@vcn.com