26° and Sunny
Image
By Meaghan Benson, Franklin resident
As a mother of three, my kids are always top-of-mind. Each day, I strive to raise my kids the way I see fit – instilling in them the ideals and values I believe to be important, making sure they are well-mannered, well-behaved, and equipped with good decision-making skills now and for the future. And, for any other parent reading this, I guarantee you strive to do the same.
But here's the thing: how we raise our kids might vary. Our goals, beliefs, and every day parenting techniques might not match exactly or at all. What you think is best for your child might not be the same for mine and vice versa, especially when it comes to their health and medical decisions.
This is where our local State Senate race comes into play.
Shawn Dooley (currently a State Rep) is running against Becca Rausch (current State Senator). I personally support Shawn for several reasons, but one major reason is his belief in individual freedom of choice (medically and beyond).
Time and time again, Becca Rausch has demonstrated her belief that she – and the government – know best when it comes to your child and medical decisions. With her “Community Immunity Act” (Bill S.2763/H.4784; Formerly S.2359/H.4096), Rausch introduced irresponsible and dangerous legislation that would strip parents of their rights and could leave children vulnerable and in unsafe situations.
Below I focus on some of the most concerning parts of the “Community Immunity Act.” While it's fairly lengthy and somewhat confusing (perhaps an intentional move by Rausch), I’ve tried my best to break it down and provide the source and a screenshot for each statement.
I urge you to read it and decide for yourself if this is what you’d want for your child, future child, or grandchild. If not, please vote for Shawn Dooley on Tuesday, November 8th. Every vote counts because every child counts.
Reasons why I (along with thousands of other MA residents) oppose Rausch’s “Community Immunity” Act:
Minors can consent to preventative care – including vaccination – without parental consent or knowledge. Currently, under MA General Law, Chapter 112, Section 12F, a medical professional can basically only help a minor without parental consent (and without being held liable) in acute emergency situations. Rausch’s Bill amends this so that a minor could consent to “preventative care” for a disease if he/she believes they are “at risk of contracting” the disease. This broadens the number of things a medical professional can treat a minor for without parental consent. For example, with Rausch’s proposed changes, your child could be vaccinated (Covid, HPV) or receive preventative care for STDs without your permission or knowledge. Additionally, because the realm of “preventative care” is extremely broad, as is the idea of being “at risk of contracting,” this leads to a whole host of issues regarding what type of care can be legally provided without parental consent. A slippery slope for sure.
There are NO restrictions on age, intellectual ability, or capacity to consent. Currently, Chapter 112, Section 12F does not include age or consent requirements because it basically only allows for emergency treatment of minors without parental consent. Rausch’s Bill would broaden the realm of what treatment a medical professional can provide to a minor without parental consent. Given this, you would think that Rausch would also want to add some restriction on age, intellectual ability, or capacity to consent, but she does not. Personally, for me, this is one of the most alarming components of this Bill. There is a reason we have laws in place that put an age requirement on things like driving, voting, alcohol consumption, fire arms bearing/purchasing, military enlisting, etc. It’s an historically-accepted concept that children are not adequately equipped to do certain things/make certain decisions until a certain age. Whether or not you agree with the specifics of the age requirements that are currently in place, I’d venture to say that we can all agree that some form of constraint is necessary. Just like I wouldn’t want my 9-year-old driving a car, I also wouldn’t want her/him to be able to see a medical professional behind my back to discuss (or receive care regarding) vaccinations, STDs, substance abuse (or one of the many other things the vague language of this Bill could cover).
Medical professionals would not be required to have an established relationship with the child, consult their medical history, or provide records to the parent/guardian. Again, the current law (Chapter 112, Section 12F) allows doctors to provide emergency treatment to minors without having access to medical history or a previously-established provider-patient relationship. Again, this all makes sense in regard to true emergency medical care. With Rausch’s Bill, if a medical professional can now treat a minor for “preventative care,” it is critical that this medical professional have access to the minor’s medical history; otherwise, it is down-right irresponsible and dangerous. As an example, vaccination without parental consent or medical history could lead to severe allergic and/or adverse reaction and/or duplication of vaccination.
(Please scroll down to see sources #1 and #2 for the above information).
This Bill is in violation of vaccination federal informed consent laws. By amending Chapter 112, Section 12F in the way that Rausch’s Bill would, it goes against the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986. This law requires all health care professionals to provide certain required information (e.g., vaccine information materials) to a parent/guardian – not to a minor – prior to administering the vaccine. (Please see Source #3).
Additionally, this “Community Immunity” Bill would make it so private programs can deny entry to a child based solely on their religion. “Covered programs,” including childcare facilities, schools, and camps may implement “more stringent” immunization requirements, including rejecting religious exemptions. Current law does not allow private programs to operate in this capacity. (Please see Source #4). Why would Rausch, a self-proclaimed opponent of religious discrimination, want to allow private institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion?
There are many other reasons why I oppose Rausch’s “Community Immunity” Bill, but I will stop here.
If you’ve read this far, I will ask you to please consider one question: why does Senator Rausch believe that she knows better than parents when it comes to their own children? There have been - and will always be - safeguards in place when it comes to medical treatment for children in vulnerable or at-risk situations (as there should be), but Rausch is attacking ALL Massachusetts parents with this Bill and attempting to take away our rights.
Please vote Shawn Dooley for State Senate on Tuesday, 11/8!
Source #1: MA General Law, Chapter 112, Section 12F, “Emergency Treatment of Minors.”
https://www.mass.gov/info.../mass-general-laws-c112-ss-12f
Source #2: Bill S1517, Lines 173-177: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/S1517
Source #3: H.R.5546 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
Source #4: Bill S2763, Lines 114-118 - https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/S2763
Source #1 Screenshot:
Note: This is the current law that Rausch’s Bill would amend. Please read this first.
Source #2 Screenshot:
Note: Please read these lines and go back to see how it would amend the current law (source #1). Re-read Chapter 112, Section F (source #1) with this new language.
Source #4 Screenshot:
***
Additional info. for how this would impact early childhood education in MA for families who utilize a religious exemption to vaccination:
It’s important to keep in mind that I am referring to educational programs here. These “private covered programs” include childcare facilities, schools, camps, etc.
Not only does this Bill allow these covered programs to deny a religious exemption for vaccination, but it also strongly incentivizes them to do so. If a program does not reach a certain threshold of vaccination rate, it will be publicly branded as an “elevated risk program.” (Please see lines 127-132 in Bill S.1517 https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/S1517). In order to avoid that stigma, a program might choose to accept medical exemptions only and not religious (now that the Bill would allow them to do that).
With that, you need to keep in mind that this would affect the early childhood programs in MA (daycares and preschools). Currently, the vast majority of these programs are considered “covered programs” (mass.gov/orgs/department-of-early-education-and-care). If these daycare and preschool programs began restricting access based on religion, what would that do? We know how crucial early education is when it comes to overall academic achievement (both short- and long-term). Additionally, we know that early education programs can help to serve as a remedy for socio-economic and racial disparity. If these programs started limiting access based on religious belief (i.e., not accepting a religious exemption to vaccination), it would have a devastating effect on families (https://www.epi.org/publication/education-inequalities-at-the-school-starting-gate/
