UPDATE: Contact U.S. Legislators to STOP CDC Proposed Rule
for Forced Detention, Isolation, Vaccination and Quarantine
Dear NVIC Advocacy Team Members,
We recently asked you to contact your legislators in Washington D.C. and the officials at the CDC to demand the withdrawal of the dangerous CDC proposal rule granting unprecedented and expanded police powers to forcibly detain, isolate, vaccinate and quarantine us while we travel right here in the United States.
We want to thank the organizations and individuals who came out loud and strong registering legitimate serious concerns. However, there is still work to be done requesting help from our US Senators and Congressional Representatives to stop this attack on the very civil liberties which make us grateful to live in the United States of America.
There were over 15,000 public comments posted on the Notice of Public Rulemaking (NPRM) to the CDC that are now part of the public record (https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=CDC-2016-0068). We’ve highlighted links to our comments and to those from some of our friends so you can see for yourself exactly how serious this is.
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CDC-2016-0068-14884
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CDC-2016-0068-13863
The Great Lakes Justice Center
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CDC-2016-0068-14908
National Health Freedom Action
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CDC-2016-0068-12489
While the comment period to the CDC has ended, it is imperative that everyone continues to contact their two US Senators and their US Congressional Representative asking them to demand that the CDC rescind its proposed rule.
While some legislators will end their terms in January, many will still be there and staff tends to stick around. Enough noise now can help end this dangerous rule for good!
Make sure your voice is heard. One of our supporters forwarded a personal reply message from her US Senator stating, “I've taken the liberty of contacting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on your behalf asking that they review your concerns and get back to me with a detailed and appropriate response.” We need to see many responses like this!
Don’t let their office get away with not responding or sending a lame form letter back to you that doesn’t relate to this issue specifically. Keep calling and sending in comments until they respond appropriately!
ACTION NEEDED:
1) Contact your U.S. Congressional Representative and both of your U.S. Senators Representatives and ask them to stop this outrageous federal overreach and unnecessary expansion of police powers by demanding the CDC withdraw the proposed rule.
Send your letter (sample below) by email, fax or regular mail.
It is very important that you follow-up with a personal phone call expressing your concerns as well because some offices aren't as thorough with reading letters as others.
You should be contacting all three of your U.S. legislators.
To find who represents you in the U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate:
a. Register/login to the NVIC Advocacy Portal
b. Click on the “national” tab on the top of your home page
c. Look for the names of your personal U.S. Congressional Representative and your two U.S. Senators listed on the right hand side
d. Click on their names to be linked to all of their contact information
2) Share this alert with family and friends by forwarding this email or sending them tohttp://NVICAdvocacy.org on our National page or to our note on National Vaccine Information Center Facebook.
3) Register with the NVIC Advocacy Portal to view and receive updates.
SAMPLE LETTER TO U.S. LEGISLATORS:
November 15, 2016
The Honorable FIRSTNAME LASTNAME
STREET ADDRESS
Washington, D.C. 20515
CDC and HHS Proposed Rule Concerning Quarantine
CDC Docket No. CDC-2016-0068
Dear Representative or Senator LASTNAME,
As a constituent of yours, I am writing to you for your assistance. I have serious concerns about an overreaching proposed HHS/CDC Rule that would expand police powers to forcibly detain, isolate, vaccinate and quarantine citizens. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register on 8/15/16 and the CDC has received overwhelming public comment opposing this rule. https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=CDC-2016-0068
I am asking you to demand that the CDC withdraw this proposed rule for the following reasons:
· The proposed rule is a violation of civil liberties. U.S. health officials could hold a person in custody for 72 hours without the right to contact an attorney to appeal the detention. Detainees could be asked to sign a contract with the CDC that gives consent to the “public health measures” being applied to the adult or a minor child, which may include “quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.” The proposed rule states that “the individual’s consent shall not be considered a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority” by the CDC. After release, the person can be electronically tracked and monitored, including by electronic tracking devices attached to the body. (see page 54253, column 3, Agreements and column 1, Persons: Isolation and surveillance of the NPRM)
· The federal government will have the authority to punish individuals. Those violating the “public health agreement” the individual signed in order to be released from government custody. These punishments include being jailed for six months to a year and paying fines of $100,000 to $250,000 or, in the case of “violations by organizations,” which are not explained in the NPRM, a fine of $250,000 to $500,000. (see page 54249, column 2. Penalties of theNPRM)
· The proposed rule is a clear case of federal government overreach. Federal and state laws are already in place to address the control of outbreaks of serious communicable diseases. When similar rules have been proposed in the past they have been withdrawn over concerns of civil rights violations and the cost to implement. However, the NPRM states (see page 54308, column 1, Federalism of the NPRM and page 6 of NVIC’s comments).
· The proposed rule has very subjective and unreasonably broad definitions of illness. The proposed rule defines a potentially “ill” person deserving of special government scrutiny to be someone with “areas of the skin with multiple red bumps, red, flat spots or blister like bumps filled with fluid or pus that are intact or partially crusted over,” warning ominously that “the presence of skin rash, along with fever, may indicate that the traveler has measles, rubella (German measles), varicella (chickenpox) meningococcal disease or smallpox.” These definitions (on pages 54239-40) are very subjective and will open the door for travelers to be detained for something as simple as a skin rash while suffering from a bad sunburn, acne, rosacea, eczema, psoriasis, the hives, or severe allergies and a mild fever that could be due to an old fashioned cold. Measles is not Ebola and chickenpox is not smallpox. (see pages 54239 and 54240 of the NPRM )
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
YOUR STREET ADDRESS
YOUR CITY, STATE, ZIP
YOUR EMAIL
YOUR PHONE
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
There are several things Congress can do including:
· Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (also known as the Congressional Review Act), new final rules must be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review before they can take effect.
· If the House and Senate pass a resolution of disapproval and the President signs it (or if both houses override a presidential veto), the rule becomes void and cannot be republished by an agency in the same form without Congressional approval. Since 1996, when this process started, Congress has disapproved only one rule.
· Congress may also exercise its oversight in other ways, by holding hearings and posing questions to agency heads, by enacting new legislation, or by imposing funding restrictions.
There are several things that could happen next with this proposed rule, including but not limited to:
· An agency may extend or re‐open a comment period when it is not satisfied that it has enough high quality comments or when the public comments make a good case for adding more time.
· Similarly, an agency may find that people have raised new issues in their comments that were not discussed in the initial proposed rule. As new issues or additional complexity arises, the agency may publish a series of proposed rules in the Federal Register.
· After the comment period closes, an agency may establish a second period for reply comments (comments that respond to prior comments). A reply period is not required by law. The reply comment period enables people to respond to comments that agencies received at the end of comment period, creating more of a public dialog.
· If the rulemaking record contains persuasive new data or policy arguments, or poses difficult questions or criticisms, the agency may decide to terminate the rulemaking. Or, the agency may decide to continue the rulemaking but change aspects of the rule to reflect these new issues. If the changes are major, the agency may publish a supplemental proposed rule. If the changes are minor, or a logical outgrowth of the issues and solutions discussed in the proposed rules, the agency may proceed with a final rule.
For more information on the Federal Rule Making Process read this guide -https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf
Sincerely,
NVIC Advocacy Team
National Vaccine Information Center
http://NVIC.org and http://NVICAdvocacy.org
https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Members/ContactUs.aspx
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) works diligently to prepare and disseminate our legislative advocacy action alerts and supporting materials. We request that organizations and members of the public forward our alerts in their original form to assure consistent and accurate messaging and effective action. Please acknowledge NVIC as originators of this work when forwarding to members of the public and like-minded organizations. To receive alerts immediately, register at http://NVICAdvocacy.org, a website dedicated to this sole purpose and provided as a free public service by NVIC.
Replies