Who Can You Trust? How Schools and Employers Violate Exemption Rights

It is back-to-school season, and a time to update the public on the shady tactics of how schools and employers try to rob people of their vaccine exemption rights. First, one tactic is the use of words that bypass the ethics of informed, voluntary consent when administrators and providers tell the public that vaccines are “mandatory” or “required,” when in fact vaccines are “recommendations” by the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC. Exemption rights were established in statute in 1978, at the same time that vaccines became recommended for public schools. Since the removal of vaccine liability in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, the U.S. vaccine schedule has grown to over 72 doses of vaccines by age 18, and mostly parents of school age children have quietly exercised their exemption rights selectively or to all vaccines. Since 2021, when the fast-tracked, experimental (not FDA-approved) COVID vaccines rolled out for all ages, many more people have needed to learn their exemption rights. Second, public health officials have escalated their role as accomplices to tactics which deceive people about their exemption rights, by misinformation or intentional omission, in response to the growing numbers of people who no longer trust CDPHE, the CDC, or the FDA. This article will describe the forms of the local tactics and federal strategies impacting nearly every aspect of society which is under Pharma’s capture and coercion through public health: schools (including daycares, K-12, universities, extra-curricular activities like clubs and sports, and camps), employers, the military, federal government employment (including pilots), missionary programs, benefits programs such as Medicaid and Veteran Affairs, legal immigrants, parents in divorce proceedings in family court, foster care and adoption, and also in medical situations with blood transfusions and organ transplants. At some point, every person will need to consider how to exercise their exemption rights.

Public Schools and Vaccine Exemptions

In Colorado, parents can exercise medical, philosophical, or religious exemptions to vaccines. In 2020, the statutory requirements changed from an exemption letter to the school to a state approved exemption certificate, with the incremental intent to make exemptions impossible to obtain. There are three bad options. First, the medical exemption certificate tracks doctors who approve medical exemptions, so few doctors will sign the form and risk scrutiny from their medical board or loss of insurance-based financial incentives for selling vaccines. Second, the “nonmedical” certificate was created to curtail philosophical and religious exemptions. The law requires medical personnel to approve a religious exemption, in which medical professionals refuse to sign or approve religious beliefs. Third, an online re-education module which attempts to persuade people that vaccines are “safe an effective,” while depicting disease risk in the third world where nutrition and sanitation are lacking. The benefit of each vaccine is depicted as lifesaving from inevitable fatal disease, and the only vaccine risks are depicted as mild swelling at injection site. Vaccine failure data, infection prevalence risk data, and vaccine adverse reaction data (to include disability and death) are not included in the module. All these exemption options are tracked in a state registry known as CIIS, with coercive reminder, recall, and home visit operations.

One legal exemption removed from public view with these statutory changes is natural immunity. People can test their blood with a titers test to determine if they have natural immunity in lieu of vaccination.

In 2020, thousands of parents protested at the Colorado legislature (and to the 70 pharma lobbyists in support of the bill) about the “nonmedical” terminology in CO-SB2020-163, because all drugs have health risks. The “nonmedical” terminology was designed to undermine religious rights established under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA 1993). Was this bill titled “subversion of religious exemptions?” No. In a total lack of transparency by democrat supermajority, it was named “School Entry Immunizations: Concerning the modernization of the school entry immunization process.” The pharma lobbyists “modernized” your exemption rights the year before the COVID vaccine rollout.

As of 2024, parents report that various schools and programs claim that they do not accept “non-medical exemptions.” My advice to these parents is to know their exemption rights, and to not rely on administrators to inform them correctly. If a school is following state vaccine statute, then the school must also follow exemption statute. Colorado Revised Statute 25-4-902 contains the immunization recommendations and Colorado Revised Statute 25-4-903 contains the vaccine exemption rights.

Any entity that is not accepting “nonmedical exemptions” is in violation of state law. How is CDPHE an accomplice to this tactic? First, CDPHE lobbied the legislature to remove the section longstanding in statute which required exemption rights to be listed everywhere that vaccine recommendations are listed. Second, CDPHE allowed universities and employers to develop religious scrutiny tests during COVID to approve/disapprove sincerely and deeply held personal beliefs objecting to vaccines. This is a violation of state and federal law. People cannot be required to provide a religious explanation or belong to an institutional religion to object to vaccines, and this is reiterated in CRS 25-4-903:

“Not require the student’s parent or legal guardian, the emancipated student, or the student eighteen years of age or older to provide any information that would identify the religious faith or describe the reasons for the personal belief of the student’s parent or legal guardian, the emancipated student, or the student eighteen years of age or older who is claiming a nonmedical exemption.”

Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 25-4-910 also reiterates that vaccine providers have been shielded from liability since NCVIA of 1986:

“No person who administers a vaccine which is required under the provisions of this part 9 to an infant or child whose age is greater than twenty days shall be held liable for injuries sustained pursuant to such vaccine…”

CRS 25-4-910 also acknowledges that serious vaccine injury and death are risks with a vaccine injury table established for compensation in NCVIA of 1986:

“An action shall not be maintained for a vaccine-related injury or death until action for compensation for such alleged injury has been exhausted under the terms of the ‘National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986’…”

In summary, a group of appointed yes-men on the federal ACIP committee recommend every vaccine which Pharma brings to market, while state health departments receive millions of dollars to coerce 95% uptake of every vaccine, legislators pass Pharma ghostwritten bills to erode exemption rights, local providers are shielded from all liability for injury and are not required to provide real efficacy and risk data beyond “safe and effective” marketing slogans, and consumers have a taxpayer funded compensation system which does not compensate 99% of claims for disability and death.

Employers: Jab or Job?

The pandemic expanded vaccine “mandates” beyond students and healthcare workers to all employment sectors. It took years in the judicial process, but courts have ruled that denial of religious exemptions is discrimination as reported by KDVR in May 2024, “US appeals court rejects CU’s vaccine mandate, cites ‘religious animus:’”

“A U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on May 7 that the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine‘s COVID-19 vaccination mandate and refusal to include a religious exemption were unconstitutional under the First Amendment, according to court documents. According to the opinion written by 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Allison Eid, ‘A government employer may not punish some employees, but not others, for the same activity, due only to differences in the employee’s religious beliefs.’”

Invoking public health and safety, CU implemented a hostile religious scrutiny test, asked applicants about previous vaccines, and set a requirement that the religion must forbid all vaccines for all adherents in all circumstances, and then rejected exemptions which did not meet their religious scrutiny. CU also invented a revised discriminatory religious exemption process which denied all students and yet allowed some employees to work remotely. CDPHE was complicit because CDPHE failed to direct CU (and other employers) to the statutory process for religious exemptions.

From Pharma’s perspective, illegal vaccine mandates are very profitable sales strategies, because Pharma never pays the restitution. From the consumer’s perspective, each person must decide to comply with an illegal mandate, or to lose enrollment or employment and spend years in a legal battle at their own expense.

Lawfare and Vaccine Mandates

For employers who promoted policies during the pandemic which denied religious exemption rights, there are many lawsuits in which courts have decided in favor of teachers and healthcare workers in their religious rights to reject vaccine mandates. Pilots and airline employees have a pending $1 Billion class action lawsuit against United Airlines for religious discrimination in regards to mandates for vaccines, with coercion by mask and testing requirements for “customer-facing” employees:

The plaintiffs allege that Kirby pushed so hard to “coerce” employees to get vaccinated “for marketing purposes,” namely, to be able to boast about being the first airline to implement a vaccine mandate and to have a 100% vaccination rate.

“United CEO Scott Kirby has engaged in a despicable war against his own employees to unlawfully harass them for no other reason than virtue signaling and a marketing campaign,” Mark Paoletta, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Washington Examiner. 

“As confirmed by United’s own health experts,” he continued, “Kirby had no public health or safety reason to impose these draconian and humiliating measures that sought to illegally force United’s employees to violate their faith or put their health at risk as a condition for keeping their job.”

In addition to Kirby’s failed attempt to enforce visual labels on unvaccinated employees, the United Airlines CEO allegedly requested to make his proposed “mask and test” policy “sound very serious,” requesting that employees be “automatic[ally] terminat[ed]” after just one violation. This effort failed when Kirby was reminded by HR that his policy would violate collective bargaining agreements.

While religious discrimination lawsuits have been winning in court rulings, including with a settlement with military members in U.S. Navy Seals 1-26 v. Biden, there has not yet been a court ruling that all EUA COVID vaccine mandates were illegal because federal law prohibits mandates of investigational drugs and EUA vaccines. People have the right to refuse or accept all experimental drugs, without coercion or penalty.

In Jessica Sweeney, et al v. University of Colorado Hospital Authority, CDPHE, and the Colorado State Board of Health:

“Plaintiffs adamantly assert that an individual has the absolute Constitutional and federally secured right to refuse the administration of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) drug (e.g., Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine), biologic, or device (e.g., EUA testing articles and masks) or a ‘covered countermeasure’ under PREP Act immunity without incurring a penalty or losing a benefit to which they are otherwise entitled and that such a right is not dependent upon a person seeking a religious or medical exemption.”

In July 2024, Federal Judge Nina Wang ruled that a state can mandate an investigational drug, while federal law prohibits mandates of investigational and EUA drugs and is very clear that informed consent requires options for voluntary consent or refusal. None of the FDA-approved versions of the COVID vaccine were manufactured. This appeal of this case is a very important measure if our judicial system is corrupted and also captured by Pharma.

Conclusion

With Pharma’s capture of federal health agencies, elected legislators, and the judicial system on the issue of vaccine mandates, many people are opting to exercise their common law rights by asserting their opt-out of pharmaceutical drugs, tests, and devices by a simple affidavit asserting their rights. They are not asking for approval of their rights from a random school administrator, employer, or government official. There is ample case law and federal law supporting their rights, detailed in Sweeney v. Colorado.

For consumer watchdog information on vaccines, I recommend the National Vaccine Information Center for state exemption laws and Children’s Health Defense for legal cases against mandates.