by Renee McGuinness, Vermont Family Alliance Policy Analyst
A proposed state law allowing child vaccination without parental consent violates federal law, a Washington, D.C. law firm has notified a Vermont Senate committee. The firm also informed the senators it will challenge any such law passed by the State of Vermont, and that it has successfully challenged similar laws elsewhere.
The law firm Siri-Glimstad wrote a May 10, 2023 letter to Senators Virginia Lyons, Chair (D), David Weeks, Vice Chair (R), Terry Willliams (R), Ruth Hardy (D), and Martine Larocque Gulick (D) of the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare, putting them on notice that S.151, Section 7 providing minor consent to preventative STI services violates a federal law that requires healthcare providers to provide vaccine information statements to the legal representatives of children and to any individual to whom the provider intends to administer a vaccine. The letter notifies Committee members that the firm has been directed to challenge S.151 if it becomes law and has prevailed in a similar case in Washington, D.C. Health Choice Vermont, which shared the letter in a recent newsletter, is the premier independent watchdog on legislation regarding vaccination choice in Vermont.
Despite the notice from Siri-Glimstad, Committee Chair Virginia Lyons accepted testimony from Dr. Erica Gibson, board certified pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist, and Division Head of Adolescent Medicine at UVMMC Children’s Hospital. Dr. Gibson testified before the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare February 6, 10 AM on S.151 Section 7: her testimony begins @1:50 and ends @ 17:30 .
Doctor Gibson expressed support for S151, Section 7, not only as a pediatrician with an active practice, but also as an official representative of UVM Health Network, a Member of the Executive Board of the Vermont Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and as a member of the Vermont Medical Society.
Vermont 18 V.S.A. § 4226 (a)(1) has allowed minors aged 12+ to consent to testing and treatment for STI’s since 1971. Dr. Gibson believes that it is time to legally expand minor consent to STI and HIV prevention. She stated there is a decline in adolescent vaccine coverage because adolescents are less likely to attend yearly well-child visits and receive recommended vaccines, and currently physicians in Vermont cannot provide STI and HIV preventative services to minors 12+ without parental consent.
Dr. Gibson spoke briefly on the efficacy of the HPV vaccine and PrEP pills or shots for HIV.
In addition to her letter of support, in which Dr. Gibson claims, “we know there is a significant cohort of young people under 18 years of age that state they would not seek care for STI’s if they were not guaranteed that services would be kept confidential from parents or guardians.” Dr. Gibson cites two studies in a five page power-point: the first, Ford C, et al. JAMA 1997;278:1029–34, “Influence of Physician Confidentiality Assurances on Adolescents’ Willingness to Disclose Information and Seek Future Health Care,” is a survey of adolescents’ willingness to disclose sensitive health care information and willingness to seek care based upon their perceived sense of confidentiality. It is not a study with data that proves minors who perceive partial or full confidentiality actually receive health care.
The second study, Thrall J, et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:885–892, “Confidentiality and adolescents’ use of Providers for Health Information and for Pelvic Examinations,” is also a survey in which the conclusions are based upon the probability that adolescents would seek care based upon perceived confidentiality.
There is no confidentiality statement in S.151, Section 7, however there is a sentence in both 18 V.S.A. § 4226 (a)(1) and S.151, Section 7, “Consent under this section shall not be subject to disaffirmance due to minority of the individual consenting,” which binds the consenting minor with full responsibility for the consequences of their consent.
Dr. Gibson’s letter also states, “Young people have a variety of reasons for wanting to keep their sexual lives private but some young people might also be at risk of great psychological or physical harm should their sexual activity and any related medical problems be revealed to a parent or guardian without their consent.” Stop It Now statistics state the average age for a minor to enter the sex trade is 12 – 14, and that, “in as many as 93 percent of child sexual cases, the child knows the person that commits the abuse; 60% of children who are sexually abused do not disclose; and that most [sexual abusers] are acquaintances but as many as 47% are family or extended family.”
After reading her letter of support for S.151, Section 7, Senator David Weeks, Vice Chairman of the Committee, asked Dr. Gibson (@8:33) for a quantitative figure on the number of adolescents that would not seek medical care if their parents participated in the process. Dr. Gibson stated there is a variety of data and studies, and offered to get back to the Committee with specific information if they wanted it.
Senator Terry Williams asked Dr. Gibson (@9:33) for data on minors accessing STI treatments without parent consent that is specific to Vermont. When Dr. Gibson said there is no data, Senator Williams further questioned why there is no data for a law that has been in place since 1971. Dr. Gibson suggested the Vermont Department of Health might gather such data but did not offer to investigate further.
Committee Chair Lyons asked Dr. Gibson (@11:05) to talk about how pediatric practice works with kids at different age levels. Dr. Gibson stated it is “really common” for parents to continue to bring their 11–13-year-old in for pediatric visits, “but also for the provider to offer some time alone with the young person so they can begin to establish a relationship with that young patient and inform them of their rights to confidential care and provide them with opportunities to speak with them privately if they wish to do so. And this is done because we know it’s really important for young people to have adults they can count on for advice and support; and in some particular situations, and regarding sensitive topics, sometimes a young person is not always comfortable speaking with a parent or guardian, so to be able to be available to that young person as a resource as their primary care clinician or specialty clinician is really important, and this is something we go over with parents and guardians also as a part of our pediatric practice.”
Not only does Section 7 of S.151 violate a federal law, but also both the U.S. and Vermont State Constitutions. The existing statute, 18 V.S.A. § 4226 (a)(1) minor 12+ consent to STI treatments, does not appear to violate federal law but violates both the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions.
According to an August 2022 JAMA study published in the National Library of Medicine, all fifty states and D.C. have minor consent laws for STI and HIV testing and treatment, with varying age restrictions, clinician discretion, and confidentiality protections. Thirty-three states have minor consent to preventative services for STI’s, 17 of which also have confidentiality protection; and thirty-five states have minor consent to HIV prevention, with 18 of those states providing confidentiality.
In a January 31 (@15:20) Committee meeting, Senators Lyons and Gulick opted for retaining Section 7, while Senators Weeks and Willliams expressed interest in removing it. Senator Williams also expressed interest in repealing the existing statute for minor consent to STI testing and treatments. Senator Hardy was not present.
Vermont Family Alliance (VFA) submitted written testimony along with a request to testify before the Committee on January 29. VFA testimony has not been uploaded to the Committee page for public viewing as of February 10. No date and time has yet been set for VFA to appear before the Committee. S.151 is scheduled for review on Wednesday, February 14th at 11:00 am with legislative counsel.
The author is a Monkton resident. The Vermont Family Alliance opposes S.151.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, News Analysis
violation of federal law //// do i see a crime/// is it time for jail/// not in pervermont///
VFA Needs to email the Chair of the Committee and Cc: the Committee Assistant and the President Pro Tem and the Clerk of the Senate as to the submitted testimony and specifically request that it be posted at the correct date, as well as under the heading of the relevant Bill proceedings record. Each date is specific to the Agenda Items, and each Bill has its own webpage that are the official record (think PRR and lawsuit on the record…). They will post these items on these pages as well as under the witness name if requested and by following up you create a dilemma for them; either they comply with the request and thereby comply with their own Rules as adopted by the Joint Legislative Committe on Administrative Rules or they create a PRR (expensive Public Records Request) potential later on when the lawsuits commence.
Having your Testimony properly recorded and posted is your Constitutional Right to be on the Legislative Record. And will assist in your ability to challenge the Law later.
PS Guy Page has my contact info if VFA would like to reach out
Thank you, William!
VFA has made two requests to testify and asked that our written testimony be uploaded under witness documents for public view.
I’ve also left messages with the Sergeant at Arms for all the Senate Judiciary Committee members citing the federal law they are violating.
My response to the Committee assistant today, regarding delaying uploading my testimony until I am scheduled to testify (I can assure you they do not want me to testify), I wrote: “Kiki, I respectfully request that you upload our witness testimony today, just as you would for any witness that submits written testimony but does not request to testify in person. I reject the excuse to delay posting until I am scheduled to testify. I must impress upon you personally, Kiki, to consider whether you want to risk being held legally accountable for aiding in the violation of federal law by refusing a request to post witness testimony from a Vermont citizen. Do you want to be obedient to the Committee Chair, Senator Lyons, for the sake of your job, and by doing so, risk being held accountable for aiding the violation of federal law?
Your choice. Best regards, Renee McGuinness Vermont Family Alliance.
Three out of five Senators in the committee don’t care how much PRR and lawsuits cost Vermont Taxpayers. They are on a mission to make Vermont a communist State.
I would appreciate your contact information, and please help to warn parents to not leave their adolescent alone with a medical professional by sharing this article. Thank you.
P.S. I copied all five members of the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare on both my requests to the committee assistant to testify.
I read this with mixed feelings. First, I do NOT believe that children under age 18 should receive any medical care or treatment, incl. examinations, without parental consent for several reasons. Is it still necessary for a school nurse to contact a parent, or guardian, before dispensing an Aspirin to a child? The reason I have difficulty with this issue is due to the lack of consistent connection with some parents and their children in today’s world. It breaks my heart, but I became aware of it when I was subbing at the local school. Some days I would be in tears on my way home because of a particular situation with a child that appeared to be needing more attention at home. My point is my concern is for those children that may not have access to medical care when they need it. I guess my question is do we need to factor in these variables, sadly, considering the realities of some family situations. “Dammed if you do and damned if you don’t” I guess. Sorry.
I understand – there are many cases of Child in Need of Care or Supervision (CHINS) in which the State is also neglectful: https://outside.vermont.gov/dept/DCF/Shared%20Documents/FSD/Policies/Policy50.pdf
I just shredded Dr. Gibson’s testimony. Do you really want children to be put into her care, and others like her?
The State wants to allow minors 12+ to consent to medical treatments with no trusted adult looking out for them. The minor bears the sole responsibility of their consent, with no trusting adult to guide them. The disaffirmance clause is an evil contract: It’s predatory on both the parents and legal guardians, who are told to trust the “experts,” and it’s predatory towards the child.
The State could be helping to build up families and make them stronger, instead of creating divide and secrecy.
And they are blatantly, willfully persisting in pursuing passage of a Section of a bill that violates federal law. “Lawless lawmakers.”
S151 Section 7 violates State law, as well: 13 V.S.A. § 3252
https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/13/072/03252
(2) No person shall engage in a sexual act with another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to substantial impairment by alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person.
(c) No person shall engage in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 16, except:
(1) where the persons are married to each other and the sexual act is consensual; or
(2) where the person is less than 19 years old, the child is at least 15 years old, and the sexual act is consensual.
(d) No person shall engage in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 18 and is entrusted to the actor’s care by authority of law or is the actor’s child, grandchild, foster child, adopted child, or stepchild.
(e) No person shall engage in a sexual act with a child under the age of 16 if:
(1) the victim is entrusted to the actor’s care by authority of law or is the actor’s child, grandchild, foster child, adopted child, or stepchild; or
(2) the actor is at least 18 years of age, resides in the victim’s household, and serves in a parental role with respect to the victim.
(f)(1) A person who violates subsection (a), (b), (d), or (e) of this section shall be imprisoned not less than three years and for a maximum term of life and, in addition, may be fined not more than $25,000.00.
(2) A person who violates subsection (c) of this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, and, in addition, may be fined not more than $10,000.00.
(g) A person convicted of violating subsection (a), (b), (d), or (e) of this section shall be sentenced under section 3271 of this title. (Added 1977, No. 51, § 1; amended 1985, No. 83, § 2; 1989, No. 293 (Adj. Sess.), § 5; 2005, No. 192 (Adj. Sess.), § 10; 2021, No. 68, § 2.)
Gailgra, consider whether the Senators who support S151 Section 7, Dr. Gibson, and the organizations she represent have the best interests of children in mind when they act in secrecy and violate federal law. If they had good intentions, they would be transparent and would act according to the law. Are you okay with violating federal law as a means to an end? Lawlessness results.
Parents of Vermont school-aged children, you better wake up as your kids are a pawn
within the progressive agenda, just put it into perspective, not that it’s illegal it’s that these elected officials believe they have the power & control over your children’s medical advice…………………… who in the “He77” do they think they are !!
Parents, better wake up and you better find a lawyer before it’s too late, this proves they only care about power !!
VT. Title 12 sub-section 7151 under the age of 18 is considered a minor and generally is not entitled to give informed consent to there own medical care untill the age of 18.
https://www.uvm.edu/health/treatment-minors-under-age-18
Thank you, Mike. I’m adding this to my testimony. Renee
Thanks Renee plese keep me updated on how this goes, my email is pmr7608@gmail.com
Ever notice how leftist tyrants attempt to justify their extralegal behavior by creating strawman victims?
Perhaps the answer lies within how many selected legislators are heavily vested in big pharma and/or compensated for partaking in democide? Crimes against humanity with impunity and fake authority.
That politicians, judges, and the media disregard the law should be no surprise to anyone at this point in time. It is the modus operandi for what is the most tangible and effective ‘insurrection’ I’ve witnessed in my 75 years on this planet.
In Brattleboro last year, a child was vaccinated without parental consent, and the school and school district were sued by the parents. But a corrupt judge ruled the school has ‘immunity’ based on the so-called Emergency Use Authorization declaration.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive… This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis
Some call it ‘lawfare’. But make no mistake, what we’re witnessing is an ‘insurrection’ against our country’s founding principles and the United States constitutional rule of law. Perpetrators, in many cases our friends and neighbors, are complicit for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, working within the system to protect our individual liberty and freedom is no longer a viable solution, because, as Benjamin Franklin warned in his remarks to the 1787 Constitutional Convention:
“… this Constitution … can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
Apparently, we’ve arrived at that point in time.
“Prevention” means many things.
When did it just come to mean injections, injections, more injections?
Product is provided by the state for free, so vaccines turn into pure profit – with no accountability and no marketing costs for those involved in distributing them into arms. Just money! http://www.vtmedicaid.com/assets/resources/YF_Fee_Schedule.pdf
It’s a huge conflict of interest for anyone making money off shots, to be then promoting legislation to coerce minors. I am sorry but they cannot have the best (health) interests of the patient at heart of they stand to make so much money.
Admin fee for any vaccine (VT, 2024) = $17.85 per shot. The CDC’s new recommendations for childhood immunizations include a minimum of 76 doses of 18 different vaccines (spread out over 10 or more? visits per child?) Adult schedule also growing hugely.
COVID shot admin fees are $40, retroactive https://dvha.vermont.gov/sites/dvha/files/documents/10.4.23%20COVID%20Communication%20update.p
Preventative visit, counseling can be added on (this is LOTS o BUCKS) whether or not the patient agrees and takes the shot https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/fee-schedules/physician/lookup-tool
Home visits also pay premiums for COVID shots and you can ’round em up, too – into groups, or go door-to-door! https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/covid-19/medicare-billing-covid-19-vaccine-shot-administration
It’s a ‘shake your money maker’ for all involved… and no liability thanks to the Federal 1986 Act, Lily reider and Prep Acts – which ALL need REPEAL, asap.