Immunizations; requirements related to administration of vaccinations. (HB1342)

Introduced By

Del. Eileen Filler-Corn (D-Fairfax Station) with support from co-patron Del. Chris Stolle (R-Virginia Beach)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Immunizations. Provides that requirements related to administration of vaccinations shall not apply in cases in which the vaccination is medically contraindicated. Read the Bill »

Looking for Vaccine Info?

When it comes to health, everyone wants reliable, up-to-date information. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has information that can help answer questions you might have about vaccines.

Go to

Richmond Sunlight prohibits comments that spread disinformation about COVID-19 or about vaccines. We will promptly delete any claims that COVID isn’t serious or claims that vaccines are unsafe or ineffective.


Bill Has Failed


01/21/2016Presented and ordered printed 16103687D
01/21/2016Referred to Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions
01/27/2016Assigned to sub: Subcommittee #2
01/27/2016Assigned HWI sub: Subcommittee #2
01/28/2016Stricken from docket by Health, Welfare and Institutions


Bethanne Berman writes:

I strongly urge the Committee on Health Welfare and Institutions to vote against this bill. Removing the Religious Exemption, the ability to opt out of immunizing your children is a disgrace to our democracy. Freedom is choice. When your government can force you by denying your children the right to attend school, to receive anything they decide to place in a vial is frightening. The implications far reaching. Before these bills temoving people's freedom are considered, real research, not paid for by pharmaceutical companies needs to be done. My children 19 and 12 were not vaccinated. We are educated parents. My husband is a physician, I attended graduate school. We love our children and take our role of raising them very seriously. We made an informed decision to not vaccinate. Our children, contrary to what the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe pose NO THREAT to anyone. Invest in real research that studies in depth, the blood of vaccinated people compared to those never vaccinated.
I applaud the breakdown and spacing of the injections and this may lower the numbers of adverse reactions to vaccines, but a government forcing its people to receive injections into their body with no say or choice is morally wrong. Keep Religious Exemptions Intact.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

It's weird that the prior commenter didn't say that she has a religious objection to vaccination her children, she said that she "made an informed decision not to vaccinate." Setting aside for the moment the impossibility of being both informed and deciding not to vaccinate one's children, she's illustrated exactly why this exemption needs to go away: people are abusing the loophole. She's not objecting on religious grounds, but on the grounds of not actually understanding science or medicine.

The religious exemption has turned into a loophole, used by affluent yuppies who simply must have that $600 Maclaren stroller, the $60k/year live-in nanny, locally-brewed kombucha, and of course unvaccinated children (with the platinum-level health insurance plan to deal with their kid's eventual life-threatening measles infection). Get rid of it.

James writes:

This is an attack on Religious freedom as well as medical freedom and this is the wrong direction for our state and children. Medical consent must be given and not forced. These are still medical procedures that are happening and must be evaluated as such. These procedures carry the weight of known risks and must be evaluated by the parent to the risk/benefit on a shot by shot basis. We have long standing Religious beliefs that have served us well for many generations. We should embrace these groups rather then force to a position that pits there faith and well being of the children against the state. Please do not turn us into a California where medical tyranny through vaccine without choices is rampant. Consent must be given, not forced.

I urge everyone to OPPOSE HB 1342 because it prohibits you from exercising your freedom of conscience that applies to your religious beliefs and obtaining a religious exemption for my child for one or more state required vaccinations. HB 1342 also prohibits my doctor and nurse practitioner from exercising professional judgment in delaying administration of or granting a medical exemption to your child for one or more vaccinations if the reasons do not conform with federal vaccine contraindication guidelines.

HB 1342 should be opposed because:

1. It is a Violation of Existing State Law Protecting Religious and Parental Rights. HB 1342 violates the spirit and intent of Article 1, Sections 1 and 15-17 of the Bill of Rights of The Virginia Constitution; the Virginia 1786 Act for Religious Freedom; the Virginia 2007 Religious Freedom Act and the Virginia 2013 Parental Rights Act. The bill prevents citizens from exercising freedom of conscience protected in the Virginia Constitution and reaffirmed by subsequent state laws guaranteeing freedom of religion and the fundamental right of a parent to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education and care of the parent’s child.

2. It is a Violation of Medical Practice Ethical Standards. HB 1342 violates the Hippocratic Oath and the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk- taking. The bill would prevent state licensed physicians from working as trusted partners with parents and exercising professional judgment in assessing the health of a minor child and, if determining that a child is unfit for vaccination, being allowed to grant the child a medical exemption when the reason for granting the medical exemption does not strictly conform to narrow federal vaccine contraindication guidelines.

3. There is No Compelling State Interest. There is no public health emergency or compelling state interest that justifies violating the right to freedom of conscience with the removal of the religious vaccine exemption or restriction of the medical vaccine exemption when Virginia already has:

High Vaccination Rates, Low Vaccine Exemption Rates. In the 2014-2015 school year, the CDC reported an estimated 97.4% of kindergarten children had received five DTaP shots; 93.4% had received two MMR shots and 90.4% had received two varicella zoster shots, while only 305 children had medical vaccine exemptions and 891 had religious vaccine exemptions, one of the highest vaccination rates and lowest vaccine exemption rates (1.1%) in the nation. In addition, the CDC reported that among Virginia children aged 19 to 35 months, 91.5% had at least one dose of MMR and four doses of DTaP vaccines, which equals or exceeds the national average. According to the United Health Foundation, Virginia ranked in the top third of states (#16) with high vaccination rates for recommended doses of DTaP, polio, MMR, HIB, hepatitis B, varicella and pneumococcal vaccines among children 19 to 35 months old.

Low Infectious Disease Rates. According to the United Health Foundation, in 2015 Virginia ranked #10 among all states with a low infectious disease rate, including for pertussis. According to the CDC, in 2014 Virginia had a pertussis incidence rate of 6.1 per 100,000 persons (505 pertussis cases), one of the lowest in the nation. According to the CDC, during the past year, Virginia has had fewer than five cases of measles reported.

4. Vaccines Carry a Risk of Harm. Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury or death, a fact that was acknowledged by the U.S. Congress in 1986 when it passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Since 1988, the federal vaccine injury compensation program created under that law has awarded more than $3 billion to children and adults injured by vaccines or to families whose loved ones died from vaccine reactions, although two out of three who apply are denied compensation. The Institute of Medicine in a series of reports on vaccine safety spanning 25 years has acknowledged there is individual susceptibility to vaccine reactions for genetic, biological and environmental reasons that have not been fully defined by science, and doctors often cannot predict ahead of time who will be harmed. Long standing gaps in vaccine safety research and emerging evidence that certain vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of disease, urgently require legal protection of physician’s rights and parental rights regarding medical and religious exemptions to vaccination for minor children.

5. Vaccine Manufacturers Have No Civil Liability. The 1986 law partially shielded drug companies selling vaccines in the U.S. from civil liability and, in 2011, the US Supreme Court completely shielded vaccine manufacturers from liability for FDA licensed and CDC recommended vaccines. There is no product liability or accountability for pharmaceutical companies marketing federally recommended and state mandated vaccines that injure Americans or cause their death, which makes flexible medical and non-medical vaccine exemptions in vaccine policies and laws the only way Americans can protect themselves and their children from vaccine risks and failures.

6. Many New Vaccines are Coming. The CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule in 1983 was 23 doses of seven vaccines (DPT, MMR, polio) given before age six, and the cost of vaccinating a child with all federally recommended vaccines was $80 per child in a pediatric private practice. That cost has increased to about $2800 per child in 2015 because the numbers of federally recommended vaccines for children has increased to 69 doses of 16 vaccines between day of birth and age 18. There are several thousand vaccine clinical trials being conducted, including for infectious and non-infectious diseases such as gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, RSV, strep B, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis C, tuberculosis, e-coli, salmonella, asthma, diabetes, obesity, anti-cocaine and heroin use. Many of these new vaccines in development will be federally recommended for children.


When there is risk of harm from a pharmaceutical product recommended by government, especially a product that is marketed by companies completely shielded from civil liability, the parent’s right to exercise conscience, religious belief and informed consent on behalf of a minor child must be legally protected. In light of the fact that vaccine risks are not borne equally by all due to known and unknown individual genetic and other biological or environmental susceptibilities, parental rights, as well as those of a state licensed physician or designated vaccine provider to exercise professional judgment in protecting a child from vaccine injury and death, must be preserved in the form of flexible medical and non-medical vaccine exemptions in health policies and laws.

The least restrictive means for ensuring the public health and safety should be employed by the legislature to protect public trust in the wisdom and fairness of government policy and law. There is no public health emergency in Virginia or compelling state interest that justifies the passage of HB1342, which would violate human, civil and parental rights and would never have been condoned by the state’s founding fathers and authors of the Virginia Constitution.

James Symanski writes:

This bill is an affront on our civil liberties, on our right to informed consent for medical treatment, and on the right of doctors to decide what is best for their patients. This bill takes Virginia in the wrong direction, further eroding our rights rather than expanding them. This bill must not become law.

Julio M writes:

I strongly urge the Committee on Health Welfare and Institutions to vote against this bill.

If delegate Eileen Filler-Corn felt so strongly to introduce such a bill, why is there no mention on her Facebook account or her Delegate website (which details bills she has introduced for 2016)?.

Not only is this bill removing the exemption for Parents not wanting to vaccinate their children on religious grounds ( maybe she does not believe in the 1st Amendment?), but also removing the medical exemption, which allows licensed physicians, licensed nurse practitioners in the state of Virginia, and even the health department from providing a statement declaring "the physical condition of the child is such that the administration of one or more of the required immunizing agents would be detrimental to the health of the child."

I ask Delegate Eileen filler-corn, who then becomes the decision maker? The only addition or exemption made is the following: if "a vaccine is medically contraindicated." To which does she refer? Absolute contraindication, or relative?

Vaccine makers themselves provide possible side effects to their vaccines, including: severe allergic reaction, severe nervous system reaction, organ failure, deafness,seizures, permanent brain damage, Pneumonia, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome to name a few. These are all possible side effects that are listed within the CDC's own website

Who then gets to decide what type of contraindication a certain vaccine has? If it's not the Parents, not the licensed practitioners, not the health department, is it up to the legislature or vaccine makers?

Vaccine makers are already immune from lawsuits, and a "vaccine compensation court" has been established for families that may have someone injured from vaccines. Is Delegate Eileen filler-corn, and supporters of this bill for that matter, willing to be held personally responsible for any injuries caused from vaccination?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

This is a poor attempt to legislate, and should be voted against.

Ruth Mills writes:

Not only should this bill GO AWAY, Virginia should have a PHILOSOPHICAL EXEMPTION IN ADDITION TO A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION! The SAFETY and EFFICACY of vaccines have NOT been proven, and parents should have the RIGHT to decide what medical procedures are performed on their children, ESPECIALLY substances injected into them which have a long list of possible adverse side effects, including DEATH, indicated in the vaccine inserts. I would be very curious to know if Eileen Filler-Corn and Christopher Stolle have some sort of drug company connection/ties.

Mary writes:

Do we as a State no longer have respect for the sancitity of human life and do not care that innocent lives are being lost for the sake of profit? Vaccines contain aborted fetus tissue and abortion is murder - you can not expect a Christian to be ok with injecting their child with the cells of a murdered baby along with the known neurotoxins which have known health risks? Companies and government are profiting from the murder of innocent children. Children are a gift from God not some part of a sick and twisted science experiment to be used, chopped up and discarded as they see fit. We as Christian parents are entrusted with the care and welfare of our children - our job is to protect our children and to protect human life. We are responsible for the health care decisions on behalf of our children and should be able to make the decision for them. If we as a parent feel that vaccines are not safe, it is our responsibility to defend our children from and individual or government who is attempting to subject our children to those vaccine risks. It is a very slippery slope when you start to talk about taking away our religious freedoms and rights as protected by the Constitution - this is what our country was founded upon. I urge everyone to work towards protecting our religious freedom and parental rights and Vote NO on the bill.

James writes:

I really hope that obviously this doesnt become law but importantly that everyone against this is contacting their reps both in house and senate and the committee members on this issue. Tell your people to contact them as well. This isnt a good direction even if you are for vaccines at what limit are you ok with the state and pharma deciding what and when to stick in your child. They could stick anything in the shots killing far more then currently from side effects and are completely immune.

This is an ASSULT. This is an assult on our children and our parental rights. Its time for good people to get up and do something. All evil needs to succeed, is that good men/women do nothing. Move people.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Vaccines contain aborted fetus tissue

This is not even a tiny bit true.

Danielle writes:

I don't have children, and if/when I do, I'm not sure what decisions I will make regarding vaccinations; however, I want to have the right to make an educated and fully informed decision if the time comes. If HB 1342 is passed and removes the right of the parent to make this kind of decision, then I can't help but wonder what freedom will be taken away next?

I also don't understand how the state will have the right to share a child's information without parental consent:

F. For the purpose of protecting the public health by ensuring that each child receives age-appropriate immunizations, any physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, licensed institutional health care provider, local or district health department, the Virginia Immunization Information System, and the Department of Health may share immunization and patient locator information without parental authorization, including, but not limited to, the month, day, and year of each administered immunization; the patient's name, address, telephone number, birth date, and social security number; and the parents' names. The immunization information; the patient's name, address, telephone number, birth date, and social security number; and the parents' names shall be confidential and shall only be shared for the purposes set out in this subsection.

It may be that this portion of the bill was already in effect, but how does it not violate HIPPA?

Larry Gross writes:

Trying to understand how we keep contagious diseases from harming many while maintaining individual rights to refuse to be vaccinated.

without vaccines - we know that millions of people die... and many more sick and some harmed for life.

is the theory that only those who refuse to be vaccinated will be potentially harmed and that is their choice - all other vaccinated will still be believed to be protected?

are opponents opposed to ALL vaccination ?