Repealing Mandatory Vaccination Laws: Restoring Informed Consent and Individual Rights

August 29, 2025

Share Article:

Adapted from Barbara Loe Fisher’s NVIC commentary

Introduction


The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a troubling truth: public health policy in America has drifted far from the ethical foundation of informed consent.  From lockdowns and censorship to forced medical interventions, millions of Americans experienced firsthand what it means to lose autonomy over their bodies.  The time has come to reexamine—and repeal—mandatory vaccination laws that undermine individual rights and medical ethics.


The Illusion of Exemptions

Contrary to popular belief, medical and religious exemptions do not protect informed consent.  They function as gatekeeping mechanisms, forcing individuals to plead for permission to opt out of medical procedures that carry real risks. These exemptions validate coercive mandates rather than uphold personal liberty.

In July 2025, the American Academy of Pediatrics called for the elimination of all non-medical exemptions and tighter restrictions on medical ones.  This move ignores the genetic and biological diversity that makes some individuals more vulnerable to vaccine injury.


COVID-19: A Case Study in Coercion

During the pandemic, Americans were subjected to unprecedented mandates. Workers were fired for refusing mRNA injections. Patients were denied organ transplants. Mothers gave birth alone.  Even respected academics and physicians were punished for questioning the dominant narrative or offering alternative treatments.  The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that vaccines need not prevent infection or transmission to be mandated—further eroding the rationale behind compulsory vaccination.


Utilitarianism: The Flawed Ethical Foundation

Mandatory vaccination laws are rooted in utilitarianism, a philosophy that sacrifices individual rights for the “greater good.” This ideology has historically justified forced sterilizations, euthanasia, and other human rights abuses. The 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruling enshrined this logic into U.S. law, allowing states to override personal liberty in the name of public health.  But utilitarianism fails to account for the sanctity of individual life. It treats vaccine-injured individuals as acceptable losses, ignoring the ethical imperative to protect the vulnerable.


The Nuremberg Code and Informed Consent

After World War II, the Nuremberg Code established informed consent as a cornerstone of medical ethics.  It affirms that individuals must be free from coercion when making medical decisions.  Yet today, this principle is routinely violated under the guise of public safety.


The Path Forward: Reclaiming Medical Freedom

To restore ethical integrity, we must repeal mandatory vaccination laws and codify informed consent into state statutes. Vaccines should be subject to the same legal standards as any other product—governed by supply, demand, and liability for harm.

State legislatures hold the power to enact change. Under the Tenth Amendment, they can reject federal overreach and protect individual rights. Organizations like NVICAdvocacy.org offer tools for citizens to take action.


Conclusion

The right to informed consent is not negotiable. It is a natural, unalienable right that must be defended against utilitarian policies and medical mandates. Repealing compulsory vaccination laws is not just a legal necessity—it is a moral imperative.


Repeal Mandatory Vaccination Laws: There Are No Exemptions to Informed Consent | National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)

Follow Us:

Latest Articles, Submissions & Community Highlights

Participating groups, neighborhood leaders, and citizen coalitions can share news, documents, or resources here.

September 3, 2025
A federal lawsuit filed by attorney Rick Jaffe is challenging the legal foundation of the CDC’s vaccine recommendation process—and its outcome could dramatically reshape how vaccines are mandated and promoted in Kane County, Illinois. At the center of the lawsuit is the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which recommends vaccines for children and adults. These recommendations are widely adopted by state health departments and school systems. However, the lawsuit alleges that ACIP’s procedures violate federal law, particularly the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires transparency, public access, and balanced representation in federal advisory bodies. โš–๏ธ Key Allegations Against the CDC and ACIP Lack of Legal Authority: The lawsuit claims ACIP is not legally authorized to make binding recommendations that lead to mandates, especially for children. Violation of FACA: Plaintiffs argue that ACIP fails to meet FACA’s standards for public accountability, including open meetings and proper documentation. Conflicts of Interest: The suit highlights that ACIP members may have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, undermining the integrity of their recommendations. No Public Input: The process by which vaccines are added to the childhood schedule allegedly lacks meaningful public engagement or scientific debate. ๐Ÿงจ National Impact If the Lawsuit Succeeds If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the CDC’s vaccine schedule could be declared legally invalid. This would: Strip federal agencies of their ability to influence state-level mandates. Force states to independently justify vaccine requirements without relying on CDC guidance. Create a legal precedent for challenging other federal advisory committees operating outside FACA compliance. ๐Ÿ˜๏ธ What This Means for Kane County, Illinois Kane County’s public health policies—including school vaccine requirements—are shaped by Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) guidelines, which in turn rely heavily on CDC/ACIP recommendations. A successful lawsuit could: Disrupt School Mandates: Local districts like St. Charles 303 and Geneva 304 may need to revisit vaccine requirements for enrollment. Empower Parental Rights Advocates: The legal challenge strengthens calls to post the Illinois Certificate of Religious Exemption form alongside other required documents, ensuring equal access and informed consent. Reinforce Local Legal Efforts: It could bolster arguments made in the 2021 Kane County lawsuit filed by school employees opposing vaccine/testing mandates. Shift Health Department Strategy: The Kane County Health Department may need to revise its public messaging and policy framework to reflect a more localized, transparent approach. ๐Ÿ” A Turning Point for Transparency and Autonomy This lawsuit is more than a legal technicality—it’s a challenge to centralized authority in public health. Advocates argue that families, not federal agencies, should make medical decisions for their children. If the courts agree, Kane County could become a model for restoring local control, informed consent, and parental rights in vaccine policy. For more info regarding this important lawsuit: EXCLUSIVE: The Lawsuit That Could Collapse the CDC’s Vaccine Empire Overnight | Daily Pulse ๏ปฟ Direct link to the lawsuit: complaint2.pdf
September 2, 2025
Dangerous Expansion of Abortion Access IN ILLINOIS
September 2, 2025
A closer look at the controversial produce coating and what consumers should know.