The Day Your Minor Became Competent and You Incompetent: What Lawmakers Really Think About You
The State-Driven and Corporate Campaign to Remove Parents’ Rights
Not so long ago, the issue of medical treatment of minors—children under the age of 18—would never have been considered controversial. Parental consent was required for most any type of medical treatment, for certain, as it was required for all other situations involving children. Minors were simply not considered competent to make medical decisions and most would overwhelmingly agree with this logic.
However, the past 50 years have witnessed the erosion of all moral values and decency, along with a gradual expansion of the rights of minors, and health care has been no exception.
Minors who previously had no medical rights and legally can not enter into contract now find themselves in the position of making decisions about the most intimate medical procedures.
Lawmakers (who are owned by banks and corporations) increasingly, pushing such insane logic as not only plausible but a decision that must be mandated.
We know that the area of medical treatment of minors is still controversial, especially as it relates to certain procedures and conditions such as abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.
Many states grant minors broad leeway to determine the course of their medical treatment, and others grant them very few rights. There is little to no agreement by medical professionals and state lawmakers in a mutual alliance, as to how far minor rights should go regarding medical treatment.
What is at issue in the debate is the right and authority of the STATE to strip away parental and guardianship rights as they lower the age of consent and certify 12-year-olds as adults. Tensions are increasing between the parental responsibilities toward the child, the immaturity and vulnerability of children, and the child’s right to be emancipated from the decision of the parent.
Wherever STATE rights are in question, we find greedy hands that want control and profit attached.
This tension has produced strange fruit and a patchwork of laws that makes it difficult to make any overriding statements about minor and parental rights in regard to medical treatment.
Welcome to the all-new Emancipation of the Child. This ends the parental rights to control and care for his or her minor child or to participate in any decision-making about the child. If a minor is emancipated, the parents no longer have the right to determine where the child lives or goes to school, or how the child’s money is spent. The parent is not a legal parent anymore.
The emancipated child’s rights remove most parental duties from a mother or father. For example, the parents would no longer be required to pay child support. The parents also would no longer remain responsible for harm that their minor child causes to other people or property. Because the parents no longer are responsible for damages the minor child causes, the minor could be sued personally, held responsible for, and thrown in prison for damages s/he causes.
While emancipation relieves both the parent and child from certain obligations, the minor must still follow the color of law.
For instance, even if s/he is emancipated, the child still would not be permitted to drive until age 16. They would have to attend some facsimile of school through his or her 16th birthday. An emancipated minor still cannot vote until age 18 or purchase alcohol until age 21. The daughter could give consent on her own to get a boob job at 12 or the son could elect to have his genitals removed at age 13. Also, gaining emancipated status will not allow a minor to remove himself or herself from undesired services of the Department of Social Services.
There is no formal procedure in Massachusetts and most other states as of now for a child to become emancipated from his/her parents. Most judges will not grant a child emancipated status. A minor can elect to file for emancipation in the Probate and Family Court of his or her county despite the lack of a formal procedure or law. In rare situations where a judge is convinced that emancipation is in the best interest of the minor and that the parents are not using it to get out of paying child support, the judge may grant emancipation. Father (the state) Knows Best!
Even if the child cannot be emancipated in the NEW JACK WORLD, s/he still may have options to live elsewhere and may have independent rights. Remember that a minor does not have to be emancipated in order to receive welfare from the state, to consent to certain medical procedures, or to obtain an abortion. Parents, you will be emancipated to an elevated level of STATE’S PROPERTY.
After giving birth to her fifth child in 2018, Angela Bougher and her husband — a suburban Chicago pastor — were eager to hold their new baby girl. However, according to the couple, their newborn daughter was removed from their custody after they verbalized their intention to decline the vitamin K shot.1
The Bougher’s allege that instead of allowing them to sign a waiver form for the shot, as was previously agreed to, the nurse declared that she was reporting the couple to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and left the room with their
According to the Bougher’s — who declined the vitamin K injection based on their religious beliefs — the hospital took possession of their daughter for about 12 hours before she was returned to them.3
The incident highlights the contentious debate that exists today over the rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s healthcare.
From the Womb to the Courtroom
In September 2019, the Bougher’s and several other parents filed a sweeping federal class-action lawsuit for violating their constitutional rights right after the births of their children. The lawsuit targets multiple hospitals, the Illinois DCFS, and individual doctors accused of conspiring to remove newborns through coercion and intimidation.4
Recordings from a committee meeting reinforce claims that doctors and DCFS caseworkers colluded to use the courts and hospital policies as a means of taking custody of newborns from parents who specifically refuse vitamin K.5
The claims did not mention parents’ concerns over a manufacturer’s black box warning noting that severe reactions, including fatalities, can occur during and immediately after injecting newborns with vitamin K.6
A growing number of scientists and medical providers also contend that the aluminum levels in vitamin K are concerning .7
The vitamin K shot is routinely administered to all newborn infants shortly after birth. Doctors are using hospital policies to take custody of newborns from parents who decline the injection even though it has a manufacturer’s black box warning stating that severe reactions, including anaphylaxis and fatalities, can occur during and immediately after the intervention.
Safeguarding basic human rights, constitutional rights, and parental rights — for today and future generations.
A contentious debate exists today over the rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s healthcare.
The Erosion of Parental Autonomy
As states across the nation roll out legislation to remove religious exemptions to vaccine mandates, dangerous language is also being written into bills to further erode parental rights. This is a particularly dangerous slippery slope, as it threatens parental rights and informed consent rights while endangering the sanctity of the parent-child relationship.
The erosion of parental autonomy has been on a fast track for at least a decade, coming full circle for exposure when Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) medically kidnapped Justina Pelletier, a teen from Connecticut.8
Massachusetts lawmakers from recently adding in “mature minor” language to proposed legislation to remove religious exemptions to mandatory vaccines for school attendance.9
Sewn into the proposed legislation is language declaring doctors and “mature minors” in charge of all health decisions.10
The “mature minor” doctrine provides for minors to give consent to medical procedures if they can show that they are mature enough to make a decision on their own. It is a relatively new legal concept, and as of 2002, only a few states such as Arkansas and Nevada have enacted the doctrine into statute. In several other states, including Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Illinois, Maine, and Massachusetts, state high courts have adopted the doctrine as law.
In the states where it exists, the mature minor doctrine takes into account the age and situation of the minor to determine maturity, in addition to factors and conduct that can prove maturity. The Arkansas statute states, “any unemancipated minor of sufficient intelligence to understand and appreciate the consequences of the proposed surgical or medical treatment or procedures, for himself [may offer consent].” The standard is typical of the requirements of the mature minor doctrine.
The mature minor doctrine has been consistently applied in cases where the minor is sixteen years or older, understands the medical procedure in question, and the procedure is not serious. The application of the doctrine in other circumstances is more questionable. Outside reproductive rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on its applicability to medical procedures. – USLegal
This is another classic example of parentectomy, just in a different form. Under the proposed legislation, Massachusetts parents would not be notified if their child received one or more vaccines, nor would the vaccine(s) administered be listed in the child’s medical records.
According to the bill:
“All information and records kept in connection with the medical or dental care of a minor who consents thereto in accordance with this section shall be confidential between the minor and the physician or dentist, and shall not be released except upon the written consent of the minor or a proper judicial order.
When the physician or dentist attending a minor reasonably believes the condition of said minor to be so serious that his life or limb is endangered, the physician or dentist shall notify the parents, legal guardian or foster parents of said condition and shall inform the minor of said notification“.11
This leaves children and their parents in a particularly vulnerable position. If a child is vaccinated without a parent’s knowledge and consent, the parent is missing crucial pieces of information that make up the child’s complete medical history.12
This could lead a parent to unnecessarily repeating the vaccination(s) in the future, causing the child to be over-vaccinated and to experience potentially unwanted and permanent side effects. Additionally, if a parent has no knowledge that a child has been vaccinated, the parent cannot lookout for potential adverse events and would be unable to link any adverse events the child might experience to the vaccine that was administered.
This scenario could lead parents on a time-consuming, dead-end search to discover the cause of their child’s medical symptoms.
Legislative analysts predict that several states will file bills in 2020 to reduce the “age of consent” to allow children to get vaccinated without parental consent. Currently, most states remain at 18 for the age of consent, but nearly 20 states — Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia — have made allowances for “mature minors” as young as age 12.
States are increasingly moving toward reducing the “age of consent.” In many instances, this will allow practitioners to vaccinate minor children without their parents’ permission or knowledge.
The term — “mature minor” is being aggressively added to new vaccine mandate bills. Ultimately, the language stipulates that children who are considered “mature” should be allowed to make their own healthcare decisions without notifying their parents.
It is now generally considered a form of patients rights; formerly, the Mature Minor Rule was largely seen as protecting health care providers from criminal and civil claims by parents of minors at least 15.
Jurisdictions may codify an ‘age of medical consent’, accept the judgment of licensed providers regarding an individual minor, or accept a formal court decision following a request that a patient is designated a “Mature Minor”, or may rely on some combination. For example, patients at least 16 may be assumed to be ‘mature minors’ for this purpose, patients aged 13 to 15 may be designated so by licensed providers, and pre-teen patients may be so-designated after evaluation by an agency or court.
The mature minor doctrine is sometimes connected with enforcing the confidentiality of minor patients from their parents. In the United States, a typical statute lists: “Who may consent surgical or medical treatment or procedures.” “…Any unemancipated minor of sufficient intelligence to understand and appreciate the consequences of the proposed surgical or medical treatment or procedures, for himself.”
By definition, a “mature minor” has been found to have the capacity to make serious medical decisions alone. By contrast, “medical emancipation” formally releases children from some parental involvement requirements but does not necessarily grant that decision making to children themselves. Pursuant to statute, several jurisdictions grant medical emancipation to a minor who has become pregnant or requires sexual-health services, thereby permitting medical treatment without parental consent and, often, confidentiality from parents.
A limited guardianship may be appointed to make medical decisions for the medically emancipated minor and the minor may not be permitted to refuse or even choose treatment. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mature_minor_doctrine
MINORS IN THE DRIVER’S SEAT
Eight states currently permit minors to be vaccinated without parental consent. Here is what minors can consent to in those states.
• Alabama – Children 14 and older can consent to any healthcare service.
• Alaska – Children of any age can consent to any healthcare service.
• California – Children ages 12 and older can receive vaccines related to STDs without parental oversight.
• Delaware – Children 12 and older can receive vaccines related to STDs without parental oversight.
• Idaho – Children of any age can consent to any healthcare service except abortion.
• Minnesota – Children of any age can receive the hepatitis B vaccine without their parents’ permission.
• Oregon – Children 15 and older can consent to any healthcare service.
• South Carolina – Children 16 and older can consent to any healthcare service.
Legislators contend that such measures are needed to protect public health, and that sentiment is echoed in media reports nationwide. An opinion piece published in the Chicago Sun Times pushed for changing the state law to allow 12-year-olds to override their parents to get vaccinated.13
In it, the author says, “Parents’ resistance to vaccinations was once typically rooted in religious convictions. In recent decades, too many parents have made irresponsible decisions because they believe anti-vaccine myths or think the government is overreaching by requiring vaccinations. This is now part of our broader culture wars.”14
According to independent research and a report from The Pew Charitable Trusts, eight U.S. states allow minors to receive vaccines without their parents’ permission.15 Of these states, three permit adolescents to receive vaccines that target sexually transmittable diseases (STDs), while five allow minors to consent to any healthcare intervention, including vaccination.16
The same language involving the term “mature minor” is being aggressively added to new bills concerning vaccine mandates. The language essentially stipulates that children who are considered “mature” should be permitted to make their own healthcare decisions without giving notice to their parents.
Not only does this doctrine undermine parental rights, but it also creates a plethora of questions: is a medical provider (who may or may not know a child well) best suited to ascertain his/her maturity, what criteria will the provider use to establish that maturity, and is there a conflict of interesting in making the “mature minor” designation if the provider is ultimately benefiting financially from that designation?
Moreover, some argue that allowing a doctor to decide which minor patients are mature enough to choose or reject healthcare treatments gives that doctor undue decision-making authority.
Legislating the Role of Parents
Absent from the discussion is the decades-long trend to continually broaden the number of vaccinations given and the age at which those vaccinations are given. Since 1986, there has been more than a three-fold increase in the number of vaccines on the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule — representing a dramatic departure from most of our First World peers.17
As the recommended doses have increased, so has the number of parents who want to opt-out of one, some, or all vaccines based on religious, philosophical, or medical reasons.
However, federal lawmakers and numerous states are aggressively working to remove vaccine exemptions and override parents’
Age Requirements in Massachusetts
USE A TANNING BED
DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE
Minors must be accompanied by a parent or guardian who provides written consent for the procedure
“Mature Minors” can consent
*Individuals must be 18 for genitalia piercing
Generally, children are not considered mature enough to make decisions about practices or medical interventions that could have serious health ramifications. However, lawmakers nationwide are pushing to lower the age of consent so minors can make their own healthcare decisions.
The underlying agenda is to suggest that the real problem lies with the parents — as they are the obstacle standing in between children and compliance with vaccine recommendations. Thus, the push is to “take parents out of the equation,” as one DC lawmaker relayed.
The narrative to support these legislative efforts is that parents are incapable of making important medical decisions for their children so the state needs to do it for them via medical mandates. The thrust of their claim: The state knows what’s best for your family — the state is omnipotent.
Informed consent is not the standard with childhood vaccines. Instead, the CDC has led the charge that has given way to the notion of informed refusal.18
The narrative circulating in regards to parents who refuse even a single vaccine for their child is that they are refusing medical treatment and are therefore negligent. In 2019, we saw one of the With a social and political climate that’s aggressively threatening parental rights, citizens must take a stand.
In December 2019, thousands stood in solidarity at the New Jersey State House to oppose legislation that would abolish their USand state-protected religious rights.
Multiple bills are surfacing across the county to remove religious rights, informed consent rights, and parental rights.
A totalitarianism agenda is being pushed through to override parental rights for the sake of protecting the “rights of the child.”
Standing Up for Your Family’s Health
From coast to coast, parents are in the throes of standing in their parental authority in the face of forced vaccination. Bills threatening to degrade parental autonomy with crafty language slipped in to lower the age of consent for vaccine decisions are of utmost concern for the 2020 state legislative sessions.
Some state lawmakers are acknowledging they were surprised to find language in proposed legislation that would compromise their own parental rights. The time to stand for our civil and religious liberties, particularly parental rights, is now. Laws are being drafted with the intention of removing parents from vaccine decision-making and the discussion surrounding it.
The only way to counter these efforts is to be a part of the solution. Stand firm in your natural rights as a parent. Recognize that when it comes to your family’s health, the state’s role is to make healthcare accessible, not to force pharmaceutical products on your child (or any other unwitting population).
Most of all, get involved — sooner rather than later. Any time liberties are taken away it requires Herculean efforts to restore them. So it’s best to protect your rights while you still have them.
1. Cherney, E. and Coen, J. (September 24, 2019). Doctors took a newborn baby from her parents after they refused a vitamin K shot for her. Now the couple is suing the hospital and DCFS. Chicago Tribune. Available at: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-vitamin-k-shot-lawsuit-illinois-dcfs-20190924-4qxfsnq4yva5hni36b545yp3bi-story.html (Accessed: December 12, 2019.)
2. See no. 1.
3. See no. 1.
4. West, P. (October 5, 2019). Newborns’ removal after refusal of optional shot raises parental rights concerns. Catholic News Agency. Available at: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/newborns-removal-after-refusal-ofoptional-shot-raises-parental-rights-concerns-11090 (Accessed: December 12, 2019.)
5. Fox, M. (Nov. 12, 2019). Doctors Caught on Tape Plotting to Take Custody of Newborns Whose Parents Refuse Vitamin K Shots. PJ Media. Available at: https://pjmedia.com/trending/doctors-caught-on-tape-plotting-with- dcfsto-take-custody-of-newborns-whose-parents-refuse-vitamin-k-shots (Accessed: Dec. 12, 2019).
6. Merck & Co. Inc., 2002 AquaMEPHYTON package insert. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2003/012223Orig1s039Lbl.pdf (Accessed: Dec. 12, 2019.)
7. McFarland, G.; La Joie, E.; Thomas, P.; and Lyons-Weiler, J. Acute exposure and chronic retention of aluminum in three vaccine schedules and effects of genetic and environmental variation. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, Volume 58. (March 2020). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X19305784 (Accessed Dec. 12, 2019.)
8. Levenson, M. (Feb. 25, 2016). Parents of Justina Pelletier sue Boston Children’s Hospital. Boston Globe. Available at:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/02/25/parents-justina-pelletier-sue-boston-children- hospitalfor- negligence/jCrlgTQBVikJtokEnlFBmN/story.html (Accessed: Dec. 12, 2019.)
9. An Act Promoting Community Immunity – H4096 (Massachusetts 191st General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts). Available at: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H4096 (Accessed: Dec. 12, 2019.)
10. See no. 9, H4096 p. 7, line 115.
11. See no. 9, H4096, p.8, lines 119-22.
12. Nickless, G. and Davies, R. (February 16, 2016). How to take an accurate and detailed medication history. The Pharmaceutical Journal. Available at: https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/eye-care/how-to-take-anaccurate-and-detailed-medication-history/20200476.article?firstPass=false (Accessed Dec. 12, 2019.)
13. Garcia, M. (May 9, 2019). Allow Kids to Get Vaccinations Without Parental Consent. Chicago Sun Times. Available at:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2019/5/9/18619159/allow-kids-to-get-vaccinations-without- parental-consent (Accessed: Dec. 12, 2019.)
14. See no. 12.
15. Ollove, M. (June 24, 2019). Teens of ‘Anti-Vaxxers’ Can Get Their Own Vaccines, Some States Say. PEW Stateline.
Available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/06/24/teens-of-anti-vaxxerscan-get-their-own-vaccines-some-states-say (Accessed: Dec. 12, 2019.)
16. See no. 14.
17. Vaccination Schedule Recommended by the Japan Pediatrics Society. (Aug 1, 2018). Japan Pediatric Society.
Available at: https://www.jpeds.or.jp/uploads/files/20180801_JPS%20Schedule%20English.pdf (Accessed: Dec. 12, 2019.)
18. American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement: Conflicts Between Religious or Spiritual Beliefs and Pediatric Care: Informed Refusal, Exemptions, and Public Funding. (November 2013). Pediatrics — Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/10/23/peds.2013-
2716 (Accessed: Dec. 12, 2019