Letter to the editor: Vaccination bill would protect parents’ rights | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Vaccination bill would protect parents’ rights

In response to the op-ed “Vaccination info should be epidemic,” here are some facts proving that my Vaccine Informed Consent Protection Act, House Bill 286, is the best legislative cure for the real health care epidemic plaguing hundreds of Pennsylvania families.

Across the commonwealth, medical care is now routinely denied for infants and children whose parents choose to delay or decline vaccines for many legitimate reasons. This blatant discrimination is even more troubling when you consider that the insurance industry awards lucrative bonuses to medical practices that have the highest percentages of “fully vaccinated children.”

Recognizing these barriers to equal health care access, my legislation contains a provision specifically prohibiting insurance industry kickbacks based on vaccination quotas.

Common and potentially harmful vaccine ingredients include monkey kidney cells, calf/bovine serum, aluminum hydroxide, and known carcinogens such as formaldehyde and sulfuric acid.

Surprisingly, Congress has given vaccine manufacturers immunity from vaccine-related liability. As a result, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out more than $4 billion for thousands of vaccine injuries or deaths.

House Bill 286 would prohibit denials of care and other forms of bullying and intimidation against families who exercise their God-given, parental rights to delay or decline an aggressive childhood vaccination schedule that has more than tripled since 1986.

Put more concisely, my legislation is all about protecting the rights of parents to freely determine if the rewards of every vaccination outweigh the risks for their children.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe

Cranberry Township

The writer, a Republican, represents the 12th District.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.