(3/99 Note: The legislation referred to below was before Congress in
1995. Unfortunately, the concerns expressed here are,
no doubt, still warranted.)
Why There is a Need for Natural Immunity Legislation
Bills in Congress
TO: People who practice or advocate any health care or lifestyle approach in addition
to or instead of what is sanctioned by the modern medical establishment (i.e.: herbal and
homeopathic remedies home births, extended breast feeding, vegetarian diets, the family
bed, home education, et cetera)
RE: Two bills introduced into the House (H.R. 1946; sponsor Mr. Largent) and Senate (S
984; sponsor Mr. Grassley) entitled "The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act of
On the surface, these bills appear to restrain the government from interfering in the
fundamental rights of parents to raise and care for their children. The wording implies
allowances for differences in parenting philosophies but warns that action will be taken
against parents if there is "compelling justification".
The reference standard for determining "justification'' for governmental
"interference or usurpation" is "the tradition of western
civilization". These bills attempt to protect children from their parents'
"abuse and neglect" as "traditionally defined and applied in State
Law". The bills purport to preserve parental choices in health care decisions
"unless, by neglect or refusal, the parental decision will result in danger to the
life of the child or result in serious physical injury to the child".
Growing numbers of doctors and anonymous people have registered charges of child abuse
and neglect or medical neglect with state agencies against well-informed parents who have
avoided specific modern medical treatments which have been shown to "result in danger
to the life of the child or result in serious physical injury to the child ". In my
experience, the standards used in courts to determine the validity of these charges are
slanted heavily in favor of modern medical practice and common belief, both spawned by
industry and media influence.
In cases with which I am familiar, without cause, exemplary parents have lost custody
of their children either temporarily or permanently; children have been vaccinated while
under the temporary guardianship of Commissioners of Health; children have been placed in
foster care for indeterminate periods with very limited visitation disrupting breast
feeding. In cases where children were allowed to remain at home, parents have been ordered
to wean them, feed their vegetarian children meat, consent to modern medical drugging
including vaccination, chemotherapy, and invasive testing. Courts have determined that
parents were putting their children at unnecessary risk in spite of scientific and medical
reports which supported these parents' choices.
When pregnant women consider foregoing invasive screening and monitoring they, too, are
threatened with court action. Loss of custody is used to coerce parents to consent to
vaccination against their will, convictions, & better judgment, causing irreparable
rifts between spouses.
The language of these bills is very vague leaving ample room for those in political
power, via election and appointment, to misinterpret and possibly violate our birthrights
even further. We must speak out to either dismantle these bills or to infuse some wisdom
into the standard definition of "neglect and abuse", and put compassion,
understanding, sensitivity, careful observation and perspective into the view of health
care. I believe that setting a national standard of this type will step up the monitoring
and oversight powers of state agencies in these areas causing increased illness, injury,
strife, divorce, and even death.
How to Find Your State Statutes Online
http://www.findlaw.com Legal Research Findlaw search
Back to New York State Law