LIVE: The Coronavirus Task Force is giving an update from The White House
COVID-19 in Washington: Links and resources to help you during coronavirus pandemic

Bill to remove ‘personal beliefs’ exemption for vaccinations dies in House

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — An effort to remove personal or philosophical opposition to vaccines as an authorized exemption from childhood school immunizations died in the House after failing to come up for a vote before a key deadline.

Rep. June Robinson, a Democrat from Everett who sponsored the bill, said she just didn’t have the votes needed before the 5 p.m. Wednesday deadline.

A hearing last month drew dozens of parents who said the measure would take away their rights to make decisions for their children.

Currently, Washington allows parents to claim school-vaccination exemptions for children at public or private schools or licensed day care centers based on medical, religious and personal or philosophical beliefs, and House Bill 2009 would have remove the personal or philosophical belief allowance.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington is among 20 states that allow for personal-belief exemptions and is among 48 that allow for religious exemptions.


Leave a Reply to ccdaddy57 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Alice

    Good! This unconstitutional bill should have never been passed out of committee. The fact that it did was probably due to all the campaign funds dumped into the pockets of those on that committee from big pharma and other medically related business that would stand to profit should the bill pass.

  • No More

    want a good story? Why not look into the Jefferson county sheriff’s cover up of domestic violence. Such as loosing evidence,video, and pics. While the man remains Scott free and the victim did get away. Luckily there was copies made by the victim and turned over to the prosecution team.

    • Dan Morin

      But what about BigPharma? They are ‘entitled’ to billion of profits per quarter, even if it make your child permanently impaired. Those vaccines are manufactures by corporations having a long history of corporate crimes and run by CEOs of questionable ethics.

      • ccdaddy57

        Questionable ethic’s No! They kill and maim, while collecting billions. They have no absolutely no conscience, or moral compass. They and the (FDA CDA AAP) are all responsible for the suffering of our children. God will judge all these people, and Corp.heads that done this great evil, as he did Hitler.

  • HealthFreedom

    This bill is unconstitutional. I urge the legislature to ask the Attorney General’s Office for a legal opinion about the constitutionality of HB 2009 and the constitutionality of each of the mandatory vaccines.

    • The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies due process to the states and includes a substantive component that “provides heightened protection against interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.”

    • The fundamental rights and liberty interests at stake with statutory obstacles to exemptions from mandatory vaccines, i.e. HB 2009 (and the mandatory vaccine program itself) include:

     Parents’ liberty interest in making health care decisions for their children. The Supreme Court presumes that a fit parent will act in the best interest of his or her child.
     Parents have a fundamental right to protect the “bodily integrity” of their children under the principles of liberty and autonomy implicit in the federal constitution.
     The exclusion from school for non-vaccination is the taking of a property right (parents pay for education through taxes and/or tuition) and a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
     The requirements in HB 2009 that require specific speech (“I acknowledge that my child may be prohibited from attending school during an outbreak of a disease for which my child has not been immunized.”) in order to retain a fundamental right and liberty interest is an unconstitutional violation of free speech under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.
     All give rise to a civil rights claim under 28 USC Section 1983.

    A law that impinges upon a fundamental constitutional right requires proof of a “compelling state interest” and the court will apply a “strict scrutiny” standard of review. HB 2009 will be subject to “strict scrutiny” by the courts because it significantly interferes with parents’ fundamental rights. In a court challenge, the state would be required to show it has a “compelling state interest” in making vaccine exemptions more difficult to obtain. The state would be expected to assert that the harm from “vaccine preventable diseases” is a compelling state interest; that the harm from those diseases outweighs any risk of harm from the vaccines themselves; and, that the compelling state interest justifies impinging on parents’ constitutional rights, as outlined above.

    In an adjudication of that interest, a court would actually look at the provable benefits of each mandated vaccine against the provable risks of the vaccines (the federal Vaccine court has paid out over a billion dollars for seriously harmed children and adults), i.e. does the law do what vaccine proponents claim – prevent harmful (“vaccine preventable”) diseases and enhance lifelong health? Even if the state could prove a compelling state interest, it would have to show that its mandatory vaccine laws and exemption scheme furthers that state interest. The measles vaccine is just one example of how difficult that burden may be for the state. Evidence shows that a child is more likely to get measles if he/she is vaccinated than if he/she is not vaccinated.

    The chicken pox vaccine was mandated to save businesses in the U.S. $400 million dollars in sick leave costs when parents care for children with chicken pox. Varicella Zoster Virus: Trends and Treatment, The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing; 21(4) July/August 188-9 (1996). The economic interests of business can never justify the taking of constitutional fundamental rights from parents or minor children. Further examples are set out in the attached letter I sent in 2003 to the Lake Oswego School District.

    Conclusion: HB 2009 should be rejected. It is unnecessary because parents choosing not to vaccinate their children have self-educated themselves on the issue. SB 1703 is unconstitutional, as set forth more fully above and in the attached letter to the Lake Oswego School District.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.