The Institute for Health Freedom previously reported that the CDC and academicians have drafted a Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA). The original draft (dated October 23, 2001) proposed giving state governments broad police powers to:

• Declare public-health emergencies;
• Force individuals to undergo medical exams;
• Track and share individuals’ personal health information without their consent;
• Force individuals to be vaccinated, treated or quarantined;
• Ration food and other commodities; and
• Mobilize state militias to enforce state orders and impose fines and penalties.

A revised model act was released December 21, 2001. It includes several major changes that would greatly expand the power of state and local governments. Most important, the revised version would:

• Give local governments (in addition to state governments) new police powers, and
• Tie licensing laws to the MSEHPA. Health-care facilities, doctors, and health-care providers would have to agree to abide by the MSEHPA during public-health emergencies in order to maintain their licenses to practice or run a health-care business.

These changes would greatly diminish Americans’ health freedom–including the freedom of doctors and other health-care providers. Under the revised MSEHPA, doctors could be required to administer treatments they object to. For example, pro-life doctors could be forced to give persons vaccines developed from fetal tissue. This provision clearly would infringe on doctors’ and other health-care providers’ freedom of conscience. Moreover, the revised draft legislation does not state clearly that it will uphold existing state laws that provide for exemptions to vaccination. However, it does state that individuals who refuse medical treatment (including vaccination) could be quarantined or isolated.

It is also worth noting that several words were changed to make the legislation appear less authoritarian. For example, the revision proposes to:

• “Protect” rather than “control” persons and
• “Manage” instead of “control” public and private property during public-health emergencies.

It sounds better, but does it change the meaning? Given the newly added sweeping police powers, it’s clear that these minor cosmetic changes were made to appease freedom-loving Americans who don’t want Big Brother controlling their lives–even during a “public health” emergency.

The revised Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (dated December 21, 2001) can be accessed at www.publichealthlaw.net.

Many States Have Introduced and Are Considering the Legislation

Various versions of the MSEHPA legislation have been introduced in at least 16 states, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Web site www.alec.org, including: AZ, CA, DE, IL, KY, MA, MN, MO, MS, NE, NM, NV, NJ, NY, PA and TN.

States that are considering the legislation or executive branches that are studying it include: CO, CT, DC, HI, MD, ME, NC, OH, OK, SC, TX, VA, and WI.

This article was originally published in the January/February 2002 issue of Health Freedom Watch, the bimonthly watchdog report published by the Institute for Health Freedom.

Are you ready for forced vaccinations? Without your informed consent? Against your objection? This outrageous scenario would be permitted under a fast-moving federal bill granting dictatorial powers to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a newly revised Homeland Security bill (H.R. 5710) on November 13, 2002. (Members of Congress and the public had only hours to read and study the newly revised 484-page bill.) The Senate is expected to vote on it shortly. If signed by the President, the new law could strip Americans of their precious health freedom—the freedom to decide what medical treatments and risks they will accept for themselves and their children.

How to Defend Our Homeland and Freedoms

What can the Senate and President Bush do to ensure our federal and state governments have the tools necessary to defend our homeland and protect us against bioterrorism, without stripping citizens of their civil liberties—specifically their health freedoms?

Our national leaders should make sure that any new federal or state policies include the following for every citizen:

• Conscientious belief exemption (freedom of conscience): No citizen should be forced to accept medical treatments contrary to one’s own conscience. Furthermore, medical and other practitioners should not be forced to carry out state orders contrary to a practitioner’s conscience.
• Religious exemption (freedom of religion): No citizen should be forced to receive medical treatments contrary to one’s own religious beliefs. For example, pro-life advocates should not be forced to accept a vaccine manufactured from fetal tissue.
• Medical exemption: No citizen should be forced to receive medical treatments contrary to their own physician’s or other health care provider’s individual professional judgment.

Clearly, with this freedom comes significant responsibility. Citizens identified as carrying communicable diseases may be subjected to quarantine in order to prevent the spreading of disease. However, non-infected persons who exercise their freedom of conscience, religion, or medical judgment to refuse vaccination or treatment should not be quarantined with those who are contagious.

The choice regarding vaccination and medical treatments should be up to individuals—not a federal political appointee.

You can’t defend freedom by eliminating it. Let’s maintain our precious health freedoms while strongly defending the homeland.

The Institute for Health is pleased to report that Congress recently clarified that the new Homeland Security Act (P.L.107-296, signed into law November 25, 2002) does not allow the federal government to mandate bioterrorism “countermeasures” (such as vaccines and other treatments) for civilians. Conference Report H. Rept. 108-10 says:

“The conferees understand that any countermeasures recommended by the Federal government pursuant to the Homeland Security Act (including, but not limited to vaccines) would be made available to civilians on a voluntary basis. Nothing in the Homeland Security Act would allow the Federal government to mandate the administration of a covered countermeasure to civilians” [emphasis added]. (Source: Congressional Record, “Conference Report on H.J.Res.2, Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,” House of Representatives, February 12, 2003, p. H1120.)

Whether intentional or not, the fuzzy wording of the Act appeared to give broad, new powers to the federal government to mandate “countermeasures,” such as smallpox vaccines, to protect all citizens against potential bioterrorism. IHF and others alerted the public to the new law, and many people spoke out against the impending infringements on their health freedom.

Caring Americans spoke up and Congress listened.

This article was originally published in the March/April 2003 issue of Health Freedom Watch, the bimonthly watchdog report published by the Institute for Health Freedom.

Bioterrorism & Health Choices