Vaccination Liberation - Information

Return to Home Page   Return to Index Page

Letters From WVIN
re- Model State Emergency Health Powers Act

Four Letters re- Model State Emergency Health Powers Act

Another letter re- Wyoming Model State Emergency Health Powers Act

Back to WVIN Home Page

March 4, 2004

These four letters also give information about the anti-terrorism legislation that was being promoted shortly after September 11, 2001. The information in them needs to be known even today, so that we are aware of what the authorities would like to do. Much of what was attempted two years ago has been put into law in our country and state.

January 9, 2002

The Honorable __________
Wyoming Senate
Senate District #__
P.O. Box _______
______, WY _____

Dear Senator:

Here are four letters to the editor that I sent to a dozen Wyoming newspapers a month ago. I do not know whether they were printed in them. I will send all four to you at once so that you can have my opinion. I sent you a long letter about one aspect of the Health Powers Act, but these next four shorter letters tell about many other features of the Act. I really appreciate the response I have received from many of you. Please, if you have not let me know what you think of it yet, will you drop me a short line, just to let me know your opinion? Parts of the Act might show up inside of other bills. Thank you.

          Susan Pearce
          Precinct Committeewoman, Republican, Precinct 19-1, Sheridan

FIRST LETTER            December 5, 2001

    On October 23, the Centers for Disease Control recommended that all fifty states adopt the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act", an act which is one of the most destructive of our civil rights that Americans are likely to encounter. For a view of all forty pages, please go to .

    An excellent evaluation of this act can be seen at . My comments and quotes are from that site and from the Act itself. The AAPS article I used is called "AAPS ANALYSIS (DRAFT): EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS ACT TURNS GOVERNORS INTO DICTATORS".

    The AAPS is the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, of Tucson, AZ. This group of medical professionals is disturbed by the Act for many reasons. It grants governors and public health authorities unprecedented and unchecked powers in the event of an emergency.

    Such an emergency would allow officials to force you and me to accept any medical treatments or vaccinations that the health authorities said were necessary. People who would refuse such treatment would be liable for a misdemeanor. If the health authority believes the person who refuses is a threat to "public health, he or she may be subject to isolation or quarantine pursuant to the provisions of this Article." Article V, Section 504 (b)

    It would be reasonable in some circumstances to quarantine a person with an infectious disease. However, causing a person who refuses vaccination or treatment to be liable for a misdemeanor is unacceptable.

    A person who declines medical treatment or vaccination may be isolated or quarantined. The person has the right to a hearing that will be held within 72 hours of receipt of his written request of the hearing, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. In the meantime, while awaiting the hearing, he will stay in isolation or quarantine.

    AAPS quotes Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation. He said, " Tommy Thompson, whom I have considered a friend for thirty years, should be ashamed of himself for advocating this kind of Big Brother legislation. This is not the Tommy Thompson we knew as a four-term governor of Wisconsin." Health and Human Services is using the September 11 attacks as an excuse to promote an act that has been "in the works" for over one year. The main author is a man named Lawrence O. Gostin, who was a member of Clinton's Task Force on Health Care Reform. According to the AAPS article, it is strange that Secretary Thompson should urge states to adopt a plan that comes out of the most radical left wing of Clinton's Health Care Task Force.

    "This law treats American citizens as if they were the enemy," says George Annas, who is chairman of the Health Law Department at the Boston University School of Public Health (San Francisco Chronicle, 11/25/01).

    Paul Weyrich said, "If protests are sufficient and if conservative legislators in state legislatures are properly alerted, perhaps there is a chance to beat back this monster."


    In my first letter regarding the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act", I related how the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons feels about the taking away of our delicate system of checks and balances.

    I am accepting the suggestion of the AAPS that we spread the word far and wide. My quotes below are from the article called "AAPS ANALYSIS (DRAFT): EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS ACT TURNS GOVERNORS INTO DICTATORS", which is found at .

    The AAPS, of Tucson, AZ, states its concern that under the Health Powers Act, a governor could appoint himself dictator simply by declaring a "public health emergency". He "shall consult with the public health authority," but "nothing in the duty . . . to consult . . . shall be construed to limit the Governor's authority to act without such consultation when the situation calls for prompt and timely action." Article III, Section 301 of the Health Powers Act.

    The state legislature may not intervene for 60 days, and apparently has no authority to declare that a state of emergency never actually existed. Article III, Section 305 ( c ).

    A public health emergency is whatever the Governor wishes it to be. The Act says that it can be an "occurrence" or it can be an "imminent threat" with the cause being anything that involves a biological toxin or bio-agent that might be a "substantial risk of a significant number of human fatalities" or disability. Article I, Section 104 (l).

    But what is a "substantial risk"? A substantial risk is undefined in the Act. One in one million, perhaps? The AAPS says that the risk of one in a million is already a figure that is used to justify removal of vaccine exemptions, when speaking of an outbreak of, say, measles with transmission through an unvaccinated child.

    Is five cases considered substantial to justify such an emergency? That is the number of anthrax deaths as of the date of the writing of the AAPS article from which I am quoting.

    Perhaps smallpox is the most plausible of the threats that is cited to warrant the promotion of such legislation. The AAPS says, "given the nature of the disease and advanced medicine and sanitation, such an outbreak could be contained without any of the radical measures in this Act, just as in the 1970s. (See, for example, 'Super Smallpox Saturdays?' by Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., and Robert J. Cihak, M.D.,, Nov. 15, 2001.) Because of the adverse side effects of the vaccine (including death), more harm than good could be done by an ill-advised, unnecessary mass vaccination campaign."

    Patient privacy would be jeopardized because of new reporting requirements.

    The Governor would possess broad powers in managing the emergency. The AAPS comment on this is, "He is under no obligation to use scientifically valid methods, or to choose the least destructive method, or to perform any kind of risk-benefit analysis. He may suspend any regulatory statute, or the rules of any state agency, if they would 'prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action.' Article III, Section 303 (a)(1). Among the laws to be suspended would probably be those permitting religious, medical, or philosophical exemptions to mandatory vaccines."

    Clearly the Health Powers Act deserves much closer scrutiny. If an organization of medical professionals is saying these things about it, perhaps we need to sit up and take notice.


    In my first two letters I commented on the reactions of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons to the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act". Their concerns are, like those of many people, pretty thought-provoking, making us anxious to alert everyone before the state legislatures meet again.

    Quotations are from the same article I mentioned in my two earlier letters. It is called "AAPS ANALYSIS (DRAFT): EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS ACT TURNS GOVERNORS INTO DICTATORS" and can be found at . Other quotes are from the Health Powers Act itself.

    In the event of bioterrorism or other health emergency, property or material is to be destroyed if "there is reasonable cause to believe that it may endanger the public health." Article IV Section 401 (b). The State has to compensate the owner of any facilities that are "lawfully taken or appropriated" (Article IV Section 406), but compensation "shall be made only if private property is lawfully taken" Article VIII Section 805(a). If it is seized by an unauthorized agency, then what?

    Article IV, Section 406 states, "Compensation shall not be provided for facilities or materials that are closed, evacuated, decontaminated, or destroyed when there is reasonable cause to believe that they may endanger the public health pursuant to Section 401." Like the AAPS says, this is a HUGE exception to the compensation provision!

    Who determines "reasonable cause"? The public health authority, apparently. Does "reasonable cause" mean "contaminated"? The AAPS mentions the fact that the Senate Hart Office Building was contaminated with anthrax, but few would say it should be destroyed or fumigated with chemicals that would destroy its contents.

    Anthrax contaminates any land on which cattle has lived, according to the late Conrad Chester of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in a lecture before the 1996 annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. The AAPS article goes on to say, "The same probably applies to any land that has supported sheep or goats, or any land that has had the wind deposit soil from such an area. In other words, anthrax spores are probably ubiquitous, though at a concentration that very rarely causes any harm. Such harm as was done may have been misdiagnosed by physicians who were unfamiliar with anthrax and not specifically looking for it."

    Article IV, Section 402 (a) gives the public health authority the power to procure "materials and facilities" such as real estate if it is "reasonable and necessary for emergency response, with the right to take immediate possession thereof." It appears that the Act would allow the public health authority to use private property as an isolation facility. As the AAPS says, the property could then be destroyed, with the reason being that it is contaminated.

    In Article III, Section 304, enforcement is provided by the "public safety authority", who "may request assistance from the organized militia". In Article V, Section 504 ( c ) , referring to people who refuse vaccination or treatment, an order is "immediately enforceable by any peace officer".

    "Any physician or other health care provider" would be forced to perform medical exams and/or testing prescribed by the public health authority or face charges of a misdemeanor. Article V, Section 502 (b)

    I'm sure there are many people, including a few health care providers, who are as concerned about this as I am. Our state legislators need to take a good, hard look at this emergency document and do some research or they will follow the misguided policies in this Act.

    In my previous three letters, I talked about the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act". The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) rightly feels that the Act would be taking away many of our freedoms.

    My quotations are from the Act itself and from an article called "AAPS ANALYSIS (DRAFT): EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS ACT TURNS GOVERNORS INTO DICTATORS", that is found at .

    The Act does not hold the people "in charge" accountable. Article VIII, Section 804, concerning liability, will not allow the State authorities or its political subdivisions to be "liable for the death of or any injury to persons, or damage to property, as a result of complying with or attempting to comply with this Act" unless it is a case of "gross negligence or willful misconduct".

    The AAPS brings up a good point when it says that terrorists could cause more damage to Americans' civil rights than they could possibly do without this Health Powers Act. With such a policy in force, a terrorist could, with the help of the media and resulting hysteria, cause a scare that would result in the Governor declaring an emergency. Then follows the use of force in order to achieve "safety".

    There is a quotation by Benjamin Franklin that fits here: "They who can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Not only would people be forced to submit to medical treatment, but the Act would also allow the public health authority "to control, restrict, and regulate by rationing and using quotas, prohibitions on shipments, price fixing, allocation or other means, the use, sale, dispensing, distribution, or transportation of food, fuel, clothing and other commodities, alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles, as may be reasonable and necessary for emergency response." Article IV Section 402 ( c ) and Section 405 (b).

    People who refuse to be vaccinated, even though they are not infected, may be quarantined. They would be placed in facilities where they might be exposed to infected persons. This is made apparent with the statement that "to the extent possible", the places will be kept safe and hygienic and "all reasonable means shall be taken to prevent the transmission of infection among isolated or quarantined individuals". Article V, Section 503 (a) The uninfected people who are placed there could be at higher risk than they would be if given the freedom to protect themselves in their own way. Amazingly, this point is brought out by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons!

    Can we assume that the public health authorities will be "reasonable"? As the AAPS has several times stated, public health professionals are still requiring children to receive the hepatitis B vaccine even though uninfected children CANNOT give hepatitis B to anyone else and "there is a minuscule risk that he can acquire the disease at school". Yet the parents of an unvaccinated child are told that he will not be allowed to attend school without it.

    Suggestions are given in the AAPS article for ideas for state legislators to consider as they grapple with the issue of biowarfare crises. Our legislature should reject the Health Powers Act and take care that our system of checks and balances is not jeopardized.

                             Susan Pearce

Notice dated January 9, 2002
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.

by Jane M. Orient, M.D.
     January 9, 2002

"The "new" Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (December 21 version) has apparently been modified to remove those provisions that attracted the most dissension. (This version can be downloaded from; the Oct 23 version from This appears to be a disingenuous effort to mute criticism while making little substantial change in the proposal."

"For example, "firearms" have been deleted from the list of items explicitly named, but could still be included because the list is not restrictive. The intention to seize firearms has already been signaled."

The rest of this article by Dr. Orient is found at the URL above AAPS ANALYSIS.

Susan Pearce

March 4, 2004
    I sent these letters to many people, including my representatives and senators, two years ago. I was very concerned about the new legislation being pushed for approval at that time. As you know, the topics are still very relevant today.

December 12, 2001

Dear _______________:
    The "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act", if adopted in Wyoming, would take away many of our freedoms. I am opposed to it for many reasons. The one that I would like to talk about involves the requirement that people must have any vaccine or treatment that the public health authority says they need.
    Dr. Benjamin Rush was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and was George Washington's personal physician. I wish that the men who wrote the Constitution had had the foresight that Dr. Rush showed when he made the following statement: "Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship." They did not, and it appears that we are soon to see how true Dr. Rush's words are.
    Attorney Nancy Lord, M.D., in her closing arguments in a 1994 court case, had some pertinent points that fit here:
    "The idea of government control of medicine occurred to two people - Benjamin Rush, George Washington's personal doctor and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and Thomas Jefferson. Benjamin Rush warned: 'Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship. . . .To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic...The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.' The Founders guaranteed that we would remain free of government interference in our choice of religion. When the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they knew that government would try to dictate religion because it always had."
    "But in spite of Dr. Rush's prophetic warning, the right to freedom in our choice of health care is not part of the Bill of Rights. The founders never imagined that a trial such as this would ever take place in America. Because they never thought the federal government would even attempt to control what we keep in our medicine cabinets and kitchen cabinets. There was no such thing as the FDA until 1906, when the Pure Food and Drugs Act permitted the government to seize dangerous substances. Then in 1938 they required that safety data be submitted for evaluation. In 1962, all of those products and any new ones had to submit data on effectiveness and wait until the FDA approved the drug before it could be marketed.". . .
    . . . "The FDA expanded its power every few decades by claiming that the public needed to be protected from one thing after another. Justice Brandeis once said, 'Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.'" [Attorney Nancy Lord, M.D., vs. The FDA, in "Reconstruction of Closing Arguments in the Rodger Sless Trial, Albuquerque, NM, June 6, 1994, found at]
    Thomas Jefferson had this to say about the subject: "If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny."...
    Thomas Jefferson:
    "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

    I believe that alternative treatments and means of prevention are often superior to those of allopathic, or drug-based treatments and preventions. People need to keep the right to decide for themselves and their children, concerning these health decisions. A major reason that allopathic medicine reigns over all the rest is that the Flexnor Report of 1910 vilified all modalities except those that are drug-based.
    Ronald Steriti, ND, PhD ( explains it in this way, "In 1910 the Carnegie Foundation published The Flexnor Report, an evaluation of American medical schools chaired by Abraham Flexner (sic), in cooperation with leading members of the AMA. While pretending to be objective, the Report actually established guidelines meant to sanction orthodox medical schools and condemn homeopathic ones. The Report placed the highest value on those medical schools that had a full-time teaching faculty and those that taught a pathological and physiochemical analysis of the human body. Homeopathic colleges were faulted because of their preference for employing professors who were not simply teachers or researchers but also in clinical practice. Although homeopathic schools included many basic science courses, they also had courses in pharmacology which the Flexner (sic) Report did not consider worthwhile. As a result of the report, only graduates of those schools which received a high rating were allowed to take medical licensing exams. By 1918 only one homeopathic school remained open in the United States."
    Vivian Whorley ( said "The separation of traditional medicine and herbal medicine has caused a loss for both sides. The herbalists have felt the sting of the separation in the loss of their validity with the medical profession, but the medical profession has also lost the benefit of generations of time proven experience gained by herbalists."
    She went on to say, "I believe that the general public has become disillusioned with traditional health care and is searching for a more humanistic approach to medicine and treatment through herbal medicine. I feel that traditional health care providers need to become more open to alternative medicines."
    Many people are unwilling to accept vaccination and other drug-based medicine. They are knowledgeable about alternatives.
    Section 504 (a)(2) and (4) of the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act" says, in an attempt to reassure us: "The vaccine shall not be given if the public health authority has reason to know that a particular individual is likely to suffer from serious harm from the vaccination. . . . Treatment must not be such as is reasonably likely to lead to serious harm to the affected individual."
    Instead of being reassured, I am reminded of the fact that people are constantly being told they need vaccines such as the hepatitis B vaccine. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons was talking about that one when it made the statement that an uninfected child cannot give the disease to anyone else and there is a miniscule chance that it will be contracted in a school setting. The same group of physicians and surgeons has a letter from a pathologist printed on their website
    The letter says:
    ".What reasons can the Department of Health use to justify the mandatory immunization of children against hepatitis B? Is hepatitis B contagious like measles or mumps? No. Hepatitis B can only be transmitted by coming into contact with the blood of an infected person or (with less likelihood) by having sex with an infected person. Since sharing contaminated needles and engaging in sexual intercourse with intravenous drug abusers are not school-related activities, there is no public health reason for immunizing our infants and children against hepatitis B. Are we experiencing an epidemic of hepatitis B? No. The average number of new cases in the entire state of Virginia has been 97 per year for the past five years. Nearly all cases occurred in adults or in babies born to infected mothers. Is hepatitis B a devastating disease with severe health consequences? No. The death rate from hepatitis B infections is less than 1 per 1000 patients. The serious illness rate is 1 per 80 patients. What does that mean for Virginia? Vaccinating EVERYONE in the state would prevent fewer than 100 hepatitis B cases per year, prevent 1 hepatitis B-related hospitalization per year, and save 1 life every 10 years. Vaccinating all children in the state would have no significant impact on the already low hepatitis B rates for TWENTY years, because most victims of hepatitis B are adults from 20-40 years old."
    This pathologist continued: "Why should we not have our children vaccinated against hepatitis B? The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. Yet, we know that immunizing children against hepatitis B confers almost no benefit and subjects our children to harm. Hepatitis B immunization requires three intramuscular injections over a 4-6 month period. Approximately 20% of children experience soreness, swelling, and pain at the injection site. Approximately 5% of children experience fever, muscle aches, and flu-like symptoms for 3-7 days after each injection. Serious acute adverse reactions requiring hospitalization occur in 4-40 (estimates vary) children per 100,000. With 100,000 Virginia children (our current birth rate) receiving three injections per year, we would expect to see 12-120 children hospitalized each year due to hepatitis B vaccination. Many physicians believe that hepatitis B vaccination is associated with medium-term and long-term complications such as arthritis, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and neurologic diseases such as Guillain-Barre syndrome and multiple sclerosis. Since the mandated vaccinations would prevent only about 1 childhood hepatitis B infection per year (with usually only mild symptoms), obviously vaccinating our children against hepatitis B will cause more harm than good. That is why the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons issued a strong statement to the United States Congress protesting mandatory hepatitis B immunization programs."
    The hepatitis B vaccine package insert says that the "duration of protective effect of H-B-Vax II is unknown at present, and the need for booster doses not defined." (March, 1999)
    A July 8, 1999, press release at the same AAPS web site, says "Children younger than 14 are three times more likely to die or suffer adverse reactions after receiving hepatitis B vaccines than to catch the disease," said Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. "It's one thing to bar a student from school if he is carrying an infectious disease posing a threat to other children. But to require a questionable medical treatment as a condition of attendance crosses over the line to practicing medicine," said Dr. Orient.
    In a letter to Dr. Donna Shalala, of the DHHS, dated Aug. 3, 1999, Dr. Orient had this to say about the hepatitis B vaccine:
    . . . "We therefore request that you ask state health departments to place an immediate moratorium on mandatory vaccines, particularly hepatitis B, pending further research."
    The situation we have here, with the requirement of a vaccine that is more harmful than helpful, is shown in this letter so that you will see that the public health officials will undoubtedly make the same mistakes with other vaccines and treatments in their attempts to deal with the emergency health crises that are facing us all.
    The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which I quoted earlier, is only one group that is concerned about this threat to our most cherished rights. Their web site has suggestions we can use as we face the challenges in this regard.
    Mr.________________, I would very much appreciate a personal response to my letter.
    Let's not give up our liberties to achieve what most people think is safety. This subject deserves a tremendous amount of thought and study. Are we going to give it the time it needs or will we adopt this Emergency Health Powers Act? I pray that we take to heart the words of Benjamin Franklin, who stated, "They who can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


Susan Pearce
Precinct Committeewoman
Republican, Precinct 19-1
Sheridan County

Vaccination Liberation - Idaho Chapter
Contact: Vaccination Liberation

"Free Your Mind....From The Vaccine Paradigm"

GOOGLE: Search our site: VacLib.Org or WWWeb       Back to TOP of page.
Index of Articles for Vaccination Liberation.       Home page of Vaccination Liberation