Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Commentary / Writer misinterprets simple bill on freedom – it’s not anti-vaccination

Writer misinterprets simple bill on freedom – it’s not anti-vaccination

I’m writing in response to the barrage of misinformation amplified in the article in the January 17, 2020, Arizona Capitol Times by Emily Kirkland, executive director of the misguided Progress Now organization. She has misinterpreted, and in ultra-paranoia, jumped to mistaken, misguided, silly and embarrassing conclusions, such as anti-vaccinations, conspiracies, climate change, HIV etc., and not about a simple straightforward bill of freedom, parental rights and responsibilities – HB2050. I would like to assist the misguided director of progressive scary thought and your readers about the intent of HB2050.

John Fillmore

John Fillmore

It is not an anti-vaccination bill placed to incite a hysterical pro-vaccination crowd (which seems to be many dedicated, responsible level-headed parents, professionals and likewise concerned people of common-sense thinking) as she attacked in her silly and amusing claims involving far- right lobbying groups. None of those (National Vaccine Information Center, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, etc.) or any other reasonable and responsible legitimate groups have directed me in the common-sense Parental Protection Bill. This good bill is rather a simple desire to protect, codify and amplify a very important part of pure American belief and a human dignifying argument that no government should have any ability to dictate to its citizens (parents of their children) that they must consume any serum, kool-aid, and edible of any type or likewise tattoo anything on their own or on their children’s bodies. The premise, purpose, and identity of the bill is simply to underscore an individual’s right to protect themselves, their bodies and those of their children.

The bill strengthens pro-vaccination worriers by allowing schools to keep unvaccinated children home during active outbreaks of disease as declared by a local health authority.

Her quick misleading affront to the bill, which has not even had a first read or been assigned to any committee, seemingly claims that our children are properties of our government, our schools, our special interest groups, or other hidden faceless bureaucrats and progressive do-gooders who seem to want to micro-manage our children, our lives, liberties, and responsibilities. This is frightening and alarms me.

All parents want is what’s best for their children and we wish to be able to protect, educate, and raise them in a way reflective of our values and desires, not those of special interests groups, pharmaceutical companies and ultimately the government, which is riddled with special interest groups pumping millions of dollars into a potential trillion dollar vaccine industry.

The major portion of this bill is also “protecting” the foresight to see potential dangers in untested serums into our children. We have the Second Amendment to our Constitution to protect us from governmental overreach, but where is the protection of liberty against bureaucrats’ or progressives’ goofiness and dangerous idealism. No government should ever have any ability to ever demand we need serums, or as Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, so insightfully noted, ghoulishly tattoo on our bodies – the Nazis did that for gawd sakes! – nor force freeze-dried liquids or kool-aids into or on  our children’s bodies. This bill, HB2050, allows personal liberty and protection, a simple parental right to be codified and which would still allow reasonable vaccinations to proceed in protecting our school system while allowing for individual parental control.

I realize that nosy, big government, progressive ninnies do not like personal liberties and reasonable responsibilities to prevail, however this is Arizona and as our great governor Doug Ducey has said, we do things “the Arizona way,” like protect parental rights, personal liberties, and our children.

Rep. John Fillmore, R-Apache Junction, represents Legislative District 16. 

3 comments

  1. So Fillmore supports choice… like, women making reproductive choices? That’s fantastic!

  2. “The premise, purpose, and identity of the bill is simply to underscore an individual’s right to protect themselves, their bodies and those of their children.”
    However, Rep. Fillmore would, no doubt, make an exception to the right of women “to protect themselves and their bodies” when it comes to women’s health and abortion. How can he argue against “protection against governmental overreach” when it comes to vaccinations but then advocate for government interference in a woman’ right over her own body?

  3. Well Pat and Lizzy, there is quite a difference between Filmore securing the right for parents to make decisions for their children’s livlihood and well being vs. the right to kill them. Choice to kill your children is not synonymous with the choices we make as parents to pursue quality of life for them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

Prison Fence

New legislation would place prisoners on path to success

All across the country, at all levels of government, Americans are changing the way they think about the criminal justice system. Just this month, President Trump launched his first official campaign ad during the Super Bowl, and chose to focus his message on criminal justice reform. That he chose to run his first major ad, which reached over 100 million viewers, on criminal justice reform shows just how popular this issue has become.