Eight nurses who were fired by their hospital-employer for refusing flu vaccines got national attention earlier this year when ABC News reported on the event. This brought much needed national attention to a trend rapidly sweeping the nation, that of hospitals requiring their employees to get flu shots or lose their jobs. A large percentage of healthcare workers object to the new policy, but most are getting the shot because they can't afford to lose their jobs and are not aware of laws that could help them avoid the shot, or because they are afraid they'll be fired just for asking for an exemption. We applaud ABC News for bringing national attention to this matter.

However, the article's author misquoted me (a leading vaccine rights attorney) in a way that could put healthcare workers unnecessarily at risk if they rely on this article. Specifically, the article quoted me as saying: "Religion is legally broad under the First Amendment, so it could include any strongly held belief . . . the belief [that] flu shots are bad should suffice." This is not true, and not what I said. First Amendment protections do NOT extend to "any strongly held belief," they extend only to beliefs that are "religious in nature" as the law defines that phrase, and that are also sincerely held. As for the legal meaning of "religious in nature," it takes a consultation to explain and explore that matter with clients individually so that they can put together a legally sound statement of religious beliefs opposed to immunizations that works for them and their particular situation. Rights vary according to the specific situation and circumstances, and to the laws of the relevant jurisdiction(s).

There are six vaccine bills in each of 30+ states that now either require more vaccines for more people or further restrict our right to refuse them.

This past fall, I worked with about 150 healthcare workers in 26 states who were required to get a flu shot to keep their job. I'm happy to report that the vast majority successfully avoided the flu shot. But I gained some disturbing insights from this national perspective regarding flu shots that have implications for all adults in the U.S.:

Every state legislator in the U.S. takes an oath to uphold their state and federal Constitutions. However, in the real world, those oaths can apparently be meaningless. Last year, I wrote about state laws that allow children to consent to vaccines and other medical treatments.[1] These laws clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, but legislatures are passing them anyway, promoting healthcare industry profits while thumbing their noses at parents' Constitutional rights. More than 33 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said: "Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments."[2] Federal law is a higher legal authority than state law, so state legislatures are supposed to defer to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution. But apparently, healthcare industry profits are a higher calling to most politicians.

Health freedom-loving New Jerseyans are concerned by State Senator Loretta Weinberg's Senate Bill No. 1759. Introduced this past March, Senator Weinberg's bill is a bid to make the exercise of a vaccine religious exemption more difficult for New Jersey parents. If passed, this bill would require parents to state their religious beliefs to exempt their children from vaccines for school enrollment, something the current NJ exemption law doesn't require.

A recent news story described a newborn being taken away from her mother shortly after birth because of the mother's refusal to accept a Hepatitis B vaccine. In my law practice, I also hear stories from time to time about newborns being vaccinated in the hospital after birth without the parents' permission and against the parents' wishes. Most of the time, these kind of problems are avoidable with a information about your rights and some common sense preparation.

The mother whose child was taken away had planned a home birth, and made the mistake of not having a contingency plan, a "Plan B" in case they ended up in the hospital, as some planned home births inevitably do for one reason or another. Once in the hospital, they refused the Hep B vaccine, but not in a manner consistent with their state's legal options. Sadly, we don't have the right to decide what goes into our and our children's bodies, at least not absolutely. As disturbing as that be to many of us, it's the legal reality. So, if you're expecting a baby, find out what your state's vaccine requirements and exemption options are!

These may vary from state to state, so go to an authoritative source—a site that posts the actual laws (links to three such sites are here (www.vaccinerights.com/exemptions.html), or to your local or state health department (call them or go to their website). Non-authoritative sources such as anti-vaccine websites mean well, and they often have great information about vaccine health concerns, but they also often misunderstand and misrepresent exemption rights and procedures, and some have lost rights by relying on them. Where legal rights are concerned, if it's important, it's worth getting right the first time.

Every so often, information circulates around the alternative vaccine community recommending that parents take a form to their child's pediatrician and ask the doctor to sign it, to prevent their children from being vaccinated and to educate the doctor about vaccines. Typically, these forms list vaccine ingredients and ask the doctor to assume liability for any adverse events that the vaccines the doctor administers may cause.

The theory seems to be that this will enlighten the doctor as to the truth about vaccines and prevent the children from being vaccinated. While the idea of using these forms is very appealing to those of us in the alternative vaccine community, they are also a potential disaster waiting to happen, for the reasons stated below. Therefore, I generally advise against using these forms, unless you are thoroughly aware of the concerns below and see purpose in doing so despite the potential problems it may

1) Whether or not a doctor signs a form, the required vaccines are still required. You still either have to get any required vaccines or exercise an available exemption. Doctors and forms don't change that legal reality.

2) Let's face it: No doctor will ever sign such a form, for the simple reason that they don't have to. Doctors have plenty of liability risks already, they're not about to voluntarily take on more.

New York’s A343[1] and S384, if enacted into law, will give children the right to consent to HPV and Hep B vaccines, without the knowledge and consent of their parents. Regardless of your position on vaccines, these bills set a disturbing precedent in violation of the U.S. Constitution—child consent to medical treatment. If you live in New York, take or send the Legal Memorandum  at http://www.vaccinerights.com/legislativeprojects.html to your state representatives, along with any other concerns you may about these bills.

The following pediatrician’s commentary attacking vaccine religious exemptions was published by Raleigh’s News & Observer on February 24, 2012. As the N&O failed to publish my response, I’m publishing it here, where truth is welcome, following the pediatrician’s article immediately below.

by Alan Phillips, J.D. Attorney and Counselor at Law

It is not enough to be informed about the many problems with current immunization policy and practice. We must effectively apply that knowledge to expand our right to make informed choices. Where the rubber meets the road with vaccine rights is in the statutes and regulations that provide or restrict those rights. Therefore, a great deal of my time is spent helping citizens throughout the U.S. present their case to state legislatures about the necessity of the right to make informed choices wherever vaccines are concerned.

On February 10, 2011, citizens of New Hampshire met with a state committee to present their case for the passage of a bill to provide a conscientious exemption to immunizations. Most states east of the Mississippi River offer only medical and religious exemptions; Mississippi and West Virginia only medical. By invitation and request of an informed New Hampshire activist, I provided the following information for them to present to the legislative committee that is considering the bill. After having researched and written this document, I am convinced that such a bill represents a level of choice that is not merely justifiable, but rather, a moral and ethical imperative.