The People of New Jersey will not be denied their voice. In the 3+ weeks since S2173 was pulled, legislators have been slammed with opposition from more constituents on S173 than they’ve seen on an issue.

Ever.

After extensive power-brokering and strong-arming and horse-trading, the bill still did not have the votes. Not to be dissuaded, political fixers went for an amendment, catering to a maneuvering Republican senator willing to cut a deal. In full view (and earshot) of many thousands more parents and allies who descended on Trenton in force for another 10+ hour day (not hundreds, nice try NJ.com) on January 9, 2020 — well organized and provisioned for noise-making, nourishment, and the cold — the New Jersey Senate passed an amendment to S2173 with 18 YES and 15 NO votes, and 7 Abstentions. Take a close look at the above photo for who voted and how.

Showing up bedraggled and beat up at the bitter end of the legislative session with a dishonorable sound bite amendment in tow, this reviled bill is expected to be voted on this coming Monday, January 13 in both houses (subject to Assembly approval of the amended version).

You can read the full eight page amendment here. [1/11/20 Note: the NJLeg website just gave public access to the latest version. The amended S2173 is now in sync with companion bill A3818 and ready for a floor vote in both houses]

This amendment is discriminatory and shockingly out of touch. In an odd turn of events, it may end up helping our cause by drawing attention to what it really says. If you’re perplexed, you’re not alone. It’s not a proud moment for our lawmakers. One thing is for sure — this amendment will not make the issue go away. This is not a comprehensive analysis and I welcome comments and corrections. With just one full day to reach lawmakers, I’m rushing to publish this to support the incredible citizen engagement taking place. If you make it to the end, I do close on a genuinely positive note.

What does the amendment mean?

To be clear, the bill has not yet passed. What happened today is the Senate voted to change the bill, signalling the likely intention of former NO legislators intending to vote YES.

Here’s what the amendment portends.

#1: The religious exemption is struck from the books

It’s gone. The state of New Jersey will no longer acknowledge the rights and legitimacy of citizens to decline an invasive and serious medical intervention — acknowledged to cause catastrophic harm and death to some who receive them by our government that administers a national vaccine injury compensation program — known to contain intensely worrisome ingredients including from pigs, monkeys, cows, terminated pregnancies, and other unsavory excipients — manufactured by corporations and administered by medical professionals that have near blanket liability immunity — for deeply held, First Amendment-affirmed religious beliefs.

#2: Public school kids are SOL

Want to send your kids to public school? No vaccines, no dice. No matter that New Jerseyans pay the highest property taxes in the nation, the lion’s share of which goes towards paying for those public schools.

#3: It’s pay to play… yet again

The amendment has a carve out for private schools. Private school families are permitted to opt out of some or all mandatory vaccines for any reason. Scrape together the tuition at a private facility that will take your kids and you’re good to go.

It is becoming an American tradition. Every public problem has a private solution.

Unless, of course, you can’t afford it.

About 30,000 households in Newark have lead-contaminated water. The NRDC is very concerned. In an interview with Brian Williams, Governor Murphy said the state is stepping up in a big way. Do you agree?

#4: Private schools have some dodgy requirements

The amendment allows a nonpublic facility (i.e., day care, school) to authorize the admission of children and students who are not in full compliance with vaccine mandates.

The facility must require all students or guardians of minor children to sign an acknowledgement form, which contains their policy regarding the admission of non-compliant participants and the actual vaccination rates for the prior academic year.

This information — both the policy and the actual vaccination rates — must be posted at the entrance of the facility.

Seriously? They are fanning the flames of ignorance. Alas, most people do not understand that unvaccinated people are not pestilential. When outbreak specimens are properly molecularly sequenced, a surprisingly high percentage of measles cases are found to be in vaccinated persons (i.e., 38% in the 2014-2015 Disney outbreak). I will repeat what should be obvious. Healthy people do not spread disease. Large numbers of vaccinated also get measles. The focus should be on quarantine for anyone who contracts a contagious disease, regardless of vaccination status.

#5: It’ll get ugly — let rich parents duke it out

The Senate couldn’t get the job done properly. It could not pass the bill as is. It is choosing instead to cram the bill down the throats of public school families while tossing a decaying bone to the more affluent and letting them fend for themselves.

IT’S LESS ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH THAN IT IS ABOUT SOCIAL CONTROL

What is increasingly evident is that this bill isn’t about public health as much as it is about social control.

Ever heard the expression “Divide et impera”? It is Latin for divide and conquer. Politicians have been pitting people against each other for millennia. Our schools have been struggling mightily under the weight of this for some time. State aid cuts versus “extraordinary aid for students with the greatest needs.” Is it right and fair for schools to bear the burden of a public health question that the legislature has been unable to resolve on its own? It is a shameful, ignorant, and authoritarian move to keep children out of school, especially when it is abundantly clear to all that it does nothing to make our communities safer.

Walking in and out of their children’s schools, parents will repeatedly see vaccine information posted at the entrance and be reminded of this issue. How long do you think it will take for parents of the 97+% of children to figure out who’s not vaccinating?

NorthJersey.com reveals the likely reason S2173 sponsor Senator Joe Vitale agreed to the compromise: 

The marketplace may take care of this on its own. If a private school or preschool tells parents that 98 of 100 students have been vaccinated, parents of the vaccinated children may pressure the owners by saying they’ll remove their children unless the school accepts only vaccinated children.

At best, there’s going to be a lot more discussions about vaccines. This is an issue that doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny and thoughtful conversation.

At worst, ignorance and fear go together like tea and cookies. It will take one “outbreak” of a few measles cases for panic and vigilante initiative to set in. A whole lot more education is needed. Will facilities also post that billions of dollars have been paid to families as part of the national vaccine injury compensation program and vaccine makers and medical providers are not liable for any harm and death caused by vaccines?

That’s not in the amendment.

MISINFORMATION ABOUNDS

Senate President Stephen Sweeney told reporters that S2173 is good policy based on science:

We’re either going to get it done now or we’ll get it done in the next session. But, by all means, this is getting done. It’s the right health care policy and it’s based on science, unlike what they’re chanting and saying.

Whose science? Last week at the Ocean County Mayors’ Association meeting, Sweeney adamantly denied the presence of aborted fetal cells in vaccines:

Sweeney happens to be wrong. Georgetown University’s Kennedy Institute of Bioethics offers a clear response to the question: Is it true that there are vaccines produced using aborted fetuses? and does not mince words:

Some of the vaccines currently used to prevent diseases such as rubella, measles, rabies, poliomyelitis, hepatitis A, chickenpox or smallpox are produced using tissues from human abortions. 

The CDC vaccine excipient list makes it easy to determine which vaccines are derived from human lung diploid tissue from terminated fetuses — just search for WI-38 and MRC-5.

#6: Is a free for all good public policy?

The amendment essentially allows private schools to determine their own vaccine policies. Anything goes? It is likely to be implemented unevenly, inconsistently, and unfairly. Or, not at all.

This amendment clearly does not address community immunity. Lawmakers told us that S2173 was about the public health. Apparently it’s about striking the legitimacy of religious beliefs from the state statute and adding yet another reason to withdraw children from public school.

Have you stopped to wonder — in the face of incredible opposition — who said this absolutely must pass and why? Who is this a win for? Anything to pass S2173?

#7: The vaccine registry is a massive privacy issue

HIPAA anyone? If you haven’t heard about “immunization registries,” perk up, people. The amendment provides further insight into how this registry — called the NJ Immunization Information System (see NJIIS FAQs here) — may (and will) be used in the future.

The amendment says registry information:

  • will be given to various unnamed “private organizations” plus insurance companies (to help improve outreach and care), as determined by regulation of the commissioner. Is Child Protective Services next? I don’t know if the Division of Motor Vehicles is still named in the latest version of the bill but it was definitely in this one. Why? Are we headed towards a medical FICO score where people will be denied coverage or reimbursement for declining standard of care treatments?
  • shall be used to help ensure registrants receive all recommended vaccines in a timely manner. What does this mean, to help ensure? If NJ passes minor consent laws (or even if it does not), will children be vaccinated in schools? Who’s ensuring this and how will they do it?
  • will help control communicable diseases by assisting in the identification of persons who require immediate immunization during an outbreak. What does this mean, especially the “immediate immunization” part? Are you knocking on doors? Who decides this? What about parental consent or quarantine?
  • will contain the name of physician writing a medical exemption including all contact information and NPI number. Why isn’t the doctor’s letter sufficient? Will the state be using the registry to monitor and reprimand for “excessive” exemption activity?

Yes, it’s possible to decline participation in the registry. The amendment even addresses one dimension of discrimination to protect families who choose to opt out: “A health care provider shall not discriminate in any way against a person solely because the person elects not to participate in the registry.” However, this raises more questions than it answers. After all, the state is using NJIIS to implement big pieces of S2173… so how will this work?

Oh, and if I read it correctly, prior language preventing the use of information in the registry in a punitive manner was put back in. Are they sanctioning the punitive use of information?

#8: Don’t sign if you don’t agree

The amendment further requires non-compliant parents to sign a form stating that they understand the risks and benefits of vaccination to the child and to public health.

The state knows that some people don’t agree with the alleged benefits of vaccines and others don’t believe that they should have to take risks to protect other people.

We should never sign something we don’t agree with because it can be used against us. Except that the state knows parents really want to keep children in school.

#9: No help on the medical exemption

The amendment specifies that medical exemptions must be based on valid medical reasons consistent with guidelines issued by the ACIP/CDC and subject to approval by physicians employed by or consulting for the state.

This is the narrowest definition and almost no one is eligible. Per the CDC and a provision in the amendment that allows exemptions for siblings of vaccine injured (or deceased) children compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, you basically have to have sacrificed one child to know you have family susceptibilities in order to obtain an exemption.

It’s already exceptionally challenging to obtain a medical exemption and getting harder every day. Ask California what’s coming next. Everyone should look at the newly passed SB276 that essentially sounds the death knell for medical exemptions. California doctors are permitted to write four medical exemptions. Write a fifth and all five are invalidated plus the licensing board will pay a call. More info here.

#10: Why include college students?

New York didn’t. Unless, of course, we’re sliding towards adult mandates. Heads up teachers and professors, health care workers, first responders, corporate park employees, not to mention people in shopping malls, movie theaters, sports stadiums, and so on. How far will this go?

***

This has been a tough discussion. I’d like to close on a hopeful note.

If we’re able to pull back for a moment, we will see that something big has shifted. Many thousands are engaging and showing up. People are getting informed and reaching out to their representatives. We are observing how the legislative process works and does not work. We are seeing what is fair and what doesn’t smell right.

This issue was never simply about a bill. No matter whether S2173 passes or dies this session, nothing will be the same. Yes, there’s more work to be done. And yes, thanks to so many amazing, brave, determined, generous, inspired, and hopeful souls who care deeply about this issue, The People are participating in our governance. We’re working towards the kind of society we want.

Happy new year — 20/20 — the year of clarity of vision is upon us. Onward!