Parents threaten political payback
Anti-vaxxers oppose efforts to remove religious exemption
HARTFORD — About 150 people who do not want to be forced to vaccinate their children threatened Monday to vote against lawmakers who might remove Connecticut’s wide-ranging religious exemption.
But during a seven-hour hearing on a plan to end the exemption, amid a recent report about declining Connecticut vaccination rates particularly in religious and private schools, at least one lawmaker said she was offended by the potential promised payback, charging that she does not make decisions based on possible political retribution.
The incident occurred about 90 minutes into an informational hearing before the Public Health Committee attended by about 500 people, including dozens of preschoolers who filled two meeting rooms on the second floor of the Legislative Office Building, and another room on the first floor.
LeeAnn Ducat, the founder of an anti-vaccination group called Informed Choice CT, asked for a display of support from parents in attendance opposed to legislative efforts to change the state’s law that gives parents the option on any religious grounds.
“I’m not sure that certain legislators realize the generational damage that they are doing to their own party,” Ducat said at the end of a six-minute presentation. “By show of hands in this room, how many people will never again vote for the party who inserted their decision-making over their parental shoes?”
“I find it unfortunate that people in the state of Connecticut have had their First Amendment rights violated already.” LeeAnn Ducat, founder Informed Choice CT
Nearly everyone in the meeting room raised their hands. Many of the spectators held signs with slogans like: “Facts not fear;” “Stop medical tyranny;” and “Do no harm first.”
Rep. Pat Wilson Pheanious, whose district includes Ashford, Tolland and Willington, took offense. “I have to say that I certainly appreciate the passion in this room. But I find myself offended by the show of hands, as though to suggest that that would make a difference to me in my vote. When I take a vote, as somebody who has taken an oath of office to do the very best I can to make decisions, they will never be made on the basis of people holding up their hands and saying they won’t vote for me because of a position I’ve taken.”
Ducat turned into the major spokesperson for those opposed to the plan from Democrats, including House Majority Leader Matt Ritter, D-Hartford.
“I find it unfortunate that people in the state of Connecticut have had their First Amendment rights violated already, because, of course, the mandatory vaccination statutes in the state of Connecticut don’t allow parents to speak up on any other subject other than religious,” Ducat said, charging an alleged lack of science and “flawed data” used by health officials and the pharmaceutical industry to make immunizations mandatory.
“This is a little bit of fly-by-night,” said Ducat, a paralegal for a New York injury lawyer who specializes in litigation over damages alleged to be caused by vaccines.
She criticized the latebreaking scheduling of the meeting in recent days without a fully written bill to review and a possible vote this week in the House of Representatives. “That’s not acceptable. It’s not democratic and it’s really not very American. There is no data to support that a non-vaccinated individual is of any threat to an immuno-compromised individual. There is no emergency for the removal of First Amendment rights, including my freedom of religion.”
Ducat said that requiring vaccinations in itself is a religious standpoint. “The infant-drug program, commonly know as the vaccine program is a religion and the mandates are equivalent to forcing a religion onto those with different beliefs,” she said. “With infant drugs, one must believe that drug — or the vaccine — is safe. effective and necessary, as they are told by their doctors — or priests — who are given instructions by the CDC — their church leaders — ho are governed by the pharmaceutical industry, their church. I do not share the belief in vaccination. I am secure in my faith and I do not consent to participate in a forced religion.”
Her testimony was preceded by state health professionals who said that so-called herd immunity in schools can become compromised if there is a higher percentage of students who do not seek vaccinations, and a disease outbreak occurs such as the recent outbreak in religious schools in Brooklyn.
“The United States is one of the few developed countries that actually ties vaccinations to school admissions,” said Dr. Matt Cartter, state epidemiologist. “In Europe, for example, they’re mandated by age, and actually have muchhigher rates of immunization at age two than we have in the United States.”
Dr. Jody Terranova, speaking in favor of vaccines for the Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians, said that immunizations are best for the majority. “Herd immunity or community immunity is indirect protection,” she said. “When the vast majority of the population can’t acquire a transmitted disease because they’re immunized, it’s very difficult to spread to an unvaccinated person. Exemptions are what lower our herd-immunity rates.”
She said that exemptions for non-medical reasons are ending throughout the country because they put people at risk. “We need to be the leaders on this and join West Virginia, Mississippi and California in removing all non-medical exemptions,” she said. “Fortunately, in Connecticut we are not seeing the large outbreaks that other states have seen in measles, pertussis (whooping cough) and varicella (chicken pox).”
Rabbi Tzvi Bernstein, dean of the Bi-Culutral Academy in Stamford, an Orthodox Jewish School, said he’s worried about the potential for the current state law, in which parents can attest to even vague religious beliefs, could lead to disease outbreaks.
Rep. Jack Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, the General Assembly’s leading proponent in the rights of parents not to vaccinate their kids, started off the hearing by asking those in favor of retaining the current law to clap. After a burst of applause, Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, DWestport, co-chairman of the committee, warned that another outburst would result in the expulsion of those who participate.