Sneaky Steiner Hayward’s “Lilly Rider”: 23rd Hour Change to SB 895
(April 8, 2015)
Remember the “Lilly Rider”?
In the final hours of negotiations for the Homeland Security Act of 2002, a mysterious Rider was introduced to the bill that would have exonerated vaccine makers from any liability for their use of Thimerosal in vaccines. As most of you know, Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative manufactured by Eli Lilly & Co.
It seems we have our own Lilly Rider, and our own sneaky legislator here in Oregon, Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, who in the 23rd hour has thrown all her legislative agenda for vaccination policy into an education bill in Oregon, SB895, known as of today as SB 895–2 (more on that in a moment).
As readers of our series know, Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward is notorious amongst many parents for her vaccination zealotry, her arrogance, and her shrill treatment of those who disagree with her, most famously through a conniption fit she had during the SB 442 hearing when she unloaded on Attorney Robert Snee. SB 442, a mandatory vaccination bill, came under intense opposition earlier this legislative session, and Senator Steiner Hayward ultimately withdrew the bill, but not before vowing in the press to be back with additional measures to try and violate parental rights.
From The Statesman Journal on March 12, 2015:
Parents who do want to claim a nonmedical exemption would need to be educated on the risks of vaccine avoidance from their child’s primary care provider. The online video modules, produced by the Oregon Health Authority, would no longer be an option to satisfy the education requirement.
The policy would also require schools to make available their vaccine-exemption rates on their websites and report cards to prompt local public health conversations about vaccinations.
Steiner Hayward said this new idea addresses the main concerns of SB 442's opponents, which were parental authority and informed consent. She said videos were not an effective tool for informed consent, which is why she wants to do away with them.
Reading the above, we’ll try and distill the two separate initiatives that Senator Steiner Hayward was signaling she remained interested in introducing, and the steps she has taken to move these ideas forward this week, most notably today:
Item #1: the “Shame and Blame” Bill
Senator Steiner Hayward is interested in having schools publish their exemption rate data on their website. As our readers know, exemption data in Oregon is nearly useless, as it doesn’t distinguish between a child who has received 22 out of 23 mandatory vaccines and zero of 23 mandatory vaccines. Moreover, Steiner Hayward’s policies don’t include publishing teacher and administrator vaccination status data, so you really learn nothing about the school environment when 10–15% of the human beings on school grounds have no reporting obligation.
Earlier this week, we learned that Senator Steiner Hayward would be introducing her “Shame and Blame” ideas through SB 895 in the Senate Education Committee, a complete copy of her proposed bill can be read right here, and it is true to form with what she signaled she would do, requiring schools to maintain vaccine exemption information data in their office and on their website. A public hearing on SB 895 is scheduled for tomorrow, April 9th, at 1pm, as noted on the Oregon Legislative website here.
From Mr. Handley’s testimony:
The bill sponsor has publicly stated that SB 895 will help to facilitate “community conversation” about vaccination. In my opinion, “community conversation” is nothing more than a euphemism for bullying and intimidation. The bill sponsor is a practicing physician who vaccinates children for a living. It’s her perspective that every child should receive every vaccination, as evidenced by her failed attempts to pass SB 442, a mandatory vaccination bill. In the bill sponsor’s world, children with vaccine exemptions are a threat to society and parent’s who exempt their children do so because they don’t understand science. In point of fact, studies have shown that parents who sign vaccine exemption forms are highly educated and well informed, and that they take the decision around vaccination very seriously.
And from Mr. Snee:
At a time when most educators and schools are looking at ways to prevent and reduce bullying, SB 895, if passed, will require schools to publicize information in their offices and on their websites, that will serve no valid purpose other than to promote social bullying against the children of those who have exercised their right to informed consent and opted to exempt their child from one or more of the vaccines mandated for school attendance under Oregon law.
And from Ms. Kirschner:
Please do NOT support SB 895. Publishing a school’s exemption rate creates a culture of shame and discrimination for families who, for whatever reason, made informed, consensual decisions with their doctors about vaccinations. Decisions that were probably difficult and should remain private. It sets an expectation for a public discussion of private medical information.
The current exemption rate, reported to be around 7% is inaccurate because it includes kids who needed to vaccinate on a delayed schedule due to health issues or side effects from previous vaccines, or who didn’t need all the boosters and have enough titers (as measured through blood tests) to contribute to herd immunity. Discriminating against someone who is considered exempt under current reporting rules but who actually contributes to herd immunity is irresponsible and it violates their personal freedom to make informed, consensual, private medical decisions with their doctors.
Item #2: The “Doctor Permission” Bill:
As she told the Statesman Journal roughly one month ago, Senator Steiner Hayward has also decided to take this idea that parents “would need to be educated on the risks of vaccine avoidance from their child’s primary care provider” to the Senate, but her method in doing it
is unbelievably sneaky and underhanded!!
As you already learned, Senator Steiner Hayward had introduced SB 895 and a public hearing had been scheduled. Today, at 1:05Pm, after opposition testimony to SB895 had already been submitted, an amendment to SB895, titled SB895–2, magically appeared on the Oregon Legislative website, completely changing the intent of SB895 and making the bill look much more like SB442, Steiner Hayward’s mandatory vaccination bill that was pulled earlier this session.
This is so confusing, we want you to see both bills for yourself:
This is Page 1 of the original Senate Bill 895, you can see a clean PDF version of it right HERE. It solely addresses the “Shame and Blame” reporting idea with schools.
And this is Page 2 of the original bill.
Buried on the legislative website, and showing up today for the very first time, is SB 895–2, which includes the “Shame and Blame” Bill and the “Doctor Permission” Bill, all jammed into one Education Bill!
Unlike SB 895, which is 2 pages long, SB 895–2 is 11 pages long!
The primary change to the bill includes the new “Doctor Permission” language:
Exemptions for vaccinations must include “a signature from a physician, physician assistant or nurse practitioner verifying that the physician, physician assistant or nurse practitioner has re-viewed with the parent information about the risks and benefits of immunization that is consistent with information published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
And, Senator Steiner Hayward ramped-up the shame and blame further by not only requiring schools to post vaccine exemption data on their website and maintain copies in their office — schools must now also send the information directly to every parent!
“For the purpose of providing parents with the information necessary to protect their children’s health, each school and children’s facility shall make available the information reported under paragraph (a) of this subsection:
(C) To the parents of the children who attend the school or children’s facility, in the form of a paper document or electronic communication that includes the information in a clear and easy to understand manner and that is not a part of another document or communication.”
Parting Thoughts (For now)
- The behavior Senator Steiner Hayward has exhibited by introducing a completely new bill (895–2) in such an underhanded way violates all principals of the democratic process. Ironically, this is the same woman who went on the CBS Evening News to announce SB442!!! Moreover, why is this bill in the Education Committee rather than the Health Committee where it belongs (our guess is that Senator Chip Shields is such a hindrance to Senator Steiner Hayward that she is trying to avoid him, but that’s just a guess. Note that Senator Steiner Hayward sits on the Senate Health Committee, but NOT the Education Committee)?
“Shame And Blame” — SB 895 Original Bill
- You’ve already seen above, spelled out clearly, some of the many reason to oppose Steiner Hayward’s original SB 895, the “Shame and Blame” Bill. The addition of a new provision, requiring parents to receive notification of exemption rates, makes the Bill even less palatable.
“Doctor Permission”-SB 895–2 Amendment
The “Doctor Permission” Bill is far more troubling.
Consider the following:
- “Doctor Permission” is basically copying AB2109, a bill passed in California two years ago that requires a medical consult to get a vaccine exemption. We can save everyone in the Oregon Legislature a lot of time by just copying California’s form, here’s a link and here’s what it looks like:
Of course, looking closely at this form from California, you’ll see it includes two provisions that Senator Steiner Hayward’s new bill isn’t currently contemplating:
- It includes a Religious Belief exemption so that people who do not see doctors — like most Christian Scientists — don’t have to go find a doctor (if you check the religious beliefs box, you don’t need a medical doctor signature)
- It includes Naturopathic Doctors as health care practitioners whereas SB 895–2 is very clear on the definition of a medical professional:
“Physician” means a person who holds a degree of Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathy licensed to practice medicine under ORS chapter 677”
The most troubling aspect of Senator Steiner Hayward’s amended SB895–2, beyond the unbelievable shiftiness of the way it was introduced, is the whole idea of what constitutes “informed consent.” For medical Doctors like Senator Steiner Hayward, when it comes to vaccines, informed consent means:
Explain the benefits of vaccines, and the risks of not vaccinating.
Senator Steiner Hayward’s feeble attempt at describing informed consent is that a medical provider (and certainly NOT a Naturopath!!) must provide information “consistent with information published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” The CDC? That’s the standard for Oregonians for informed consent? The federal agency that administers the vaccine program, monitors the vaccine program, and then sends their former leaders to work for Merck?
We have a far better idea. Here are three simple steps that would make SB895–2 palatable:
- Add back the religious exemption, like they have in California.
- Add back Naturopaths, like they have in California
- And, finally, at every appointment, require the parents to be given the vaccine package insert and to initial their receipt thereof. It’s a simple request. Here’s all of the inserts right here: Hep B, Hep A, DTaP, MMR, Hib, Polio, and Varicella.
Informed consent. Medical Freedon. Religious Freedom. This is still the United States of America, and we’ve grown weary of sneaky politicians like Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, a woman who in her day job derives a portion of her income from…vaccinating children!
This article was written by several well-meaning Oregonians who are big fans of medical freedom and informed consent who apparently have nothing better to do than crunch numbers. We have nothing to gain or lose financially from the passage of this bill. We have proudly joined a movement of a few thousand Oregonians fighting this legislation, the organizing website can be found here: www.NoOnSB442.com. We have written a series of articles on this topic, in chronological order they include:
Part 2: Who cried wolf in Oregon
Part 4: Exemption-gate in Oregon?