AMA Lobby Opposes Parental Rights

A prime example of Big Business influencing the AMA, which in turn affects

Our Family, Our Children, Our Future.

When are “We the People” going to realize that our current political climate is one of OLIGARGHY? Is it too late to fight the power of Big Business and related Governmental Agencies???

Will say the Parental Rights Organization (Ref: Understand the Issue) has been actively been try to preserve Parental Rights, and everyone and anyone should be a active supporter and even a Family Advocate to support this cause.

As I learned many years ago:

The hand the Rocks the Cradle, RULES the WORLD

Keep Care
And Never Give Up,
GranPa Chuck

AMA Lobby Opposes Parental Rights

Wed, Jun 9, 2015

The American Medical Association (AMA) on Monday voted to oppose religious or philosophical exemptions for childhood vaccinations, in what its members hope will be a determinative blow against informed consent and a parent’s right to protect the bodily integrity of their child.

Two states already deny parents and children these rights under law. Neither Mississippi nor West Virginia allow for a religious or philosophical exemption by law. These states coincidentally both rank at the very bottom in both education (43rd and 50th) and economic (50th and 45th) outcomes, but suddenly the AMA finds them “cutting-edge.”

A bill in California (SB277) is being steam-rolled through the legislature in a rush to outlaw parental conscience in that state as well, which in part has fueled the AMA’s decision.

"We have a bill presently in California at the state legislature to remove all non-medical exemptions. We're worried that weak AMA policy will [affect] the California state legislature," admitted California AMA delegate Mark H. Kogan, MD, according to MedPageToday.

Ironically, the discussion arose from a report by the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs and its Council on Science and Public Health that called for better education, not stronger mandates, to improve vaccine rates. According to an article at Modern Healthcare, the report called for state laws to provide “clear definitions of accepted grounds for non-medical exemptions that prudently limit such exemptions,” and “...fair, reasonable procedures for granting non-medical exemptions.”

But delegates voted to reject the study of their own councils to take “a strong position” on mandatory vaccines.

The American Medical Association is a trade and lobbying association of medical professionals in the United States. It is made of primarily of medical doctors, and its primary functions are to advise and to lobby on medical best-practices.

In decisions such as this one, the lobbying function has clearly trumped the medical one.

Different speakers cited in several articles argued that forced vaccinations are for the good of the public. None, however, explain how mandating vaccines for non-communicable diseases like tetanus affects anyone but the child receiving the shot. Yet tetanus is among the vaccines currently required under California law which will become mandatory without exemption if SB277 is passed.

A representative from the Infectious Disease Society of America not otherwise identified by MedPage Today is quoted as summing it up nicely: “The science has to trump some of the ethical personal freedoms,” he said.

Another deeply disturbing quote comes from Forbes, which reports, “The AMA said there is no scientific basis for non-medical exemptions….” But could we provide a “scientific basis” for our freedom of speech? Of religion? Of the press, or of due process?

One’s legal rights do not depend on “science,” a fact of constitutional and natural law the AMA seems to have missed.

Fortunately, not all delegates agreed with this “ethics-be-damned” approach to vaccination law. Dr. Ryan Hall is among those who spoke in favor of the original report.

“I think CEJA got it right,” Hall said. “If we really want to change the debate, the solution to bad speech is good speech. We as an organization should not be trying to trample the rights of others. People sometimes have the right to be foolish.”

Whether or not it is foolish to opt out of vaccines for one’s child is a question best left to parents to answer. With its decision on Monday, the AMA has taken a strong stand against your fundamental right to make decisions you believe are in the best interests of your child.

Perhaps you are one of those who in recent years have begun to feel that doctors are your adversaries and not your friends. On Monday that feeling moved one step closer to reality.

Action Items

1. Talk to your doctor right away. Find out how this latest AMA decision may impact your family’s relationship with their practice. It is a sad fact: your best defense against a false medical abuse claim is a solid relationship with your child’s doctor.

2. Spread the word and encourage your friends to sign up with ParentalRights.org. The AMA is no small lobby. Their pockets are deep, and they are targeting your parental rights. If the effort to oppose SB 277 in California has taught us anything, it is that our voice must be overwhelming if we are to win.

Bulletin Insert for Father's Day One way to spread the word could be to share our new bulletin insert with your house of worship this Father’s Day. The front-and-back, half-page insert features a short message from the Bible (for churches) or the Torah (for synagogues) and invites your congregation to visit ParentalRights.org. We have available a color or grayscale version for churches and a color version for synagogues.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

~~~~~~~~~~

Like GPC Publication onFB

 

• National Coordinator of the Family Survey Program
  When One Deals with the Child Protective AGENCY>>;LearnMore