Connecticut has been quite quiet lately, when it comes to child welfare, but now we know why!
It seems someone has gotten a hold of "The Elected Ones" over there in the Children's Committee to come up with another one of those crafty privatizational privateering of the children's trusts!
With this being a auspicious Child Abuse Propaganda Month, I thought it only befitting that I give you a throwback on Medicaid fraud in child welfare for the State.
I have always held, close to my heart, lots of fun questions surrounding the identities of these children, who will now have parental rights signed through a Psuedo Public Private Partnership using licensed nurses function as, well, I guess you can call creating a fake office of authority over the children's trust to testify, as to the authenticity of Medicaid fraud in child welfare?
See, I know they do it in Michigan, and I have found some really odd operations in Conneticuit child welfare NGOs having popped up, in times of discord, but I will not go there right now, for the timing of the national measles outbreak is just serendipitous to the events about to unfold.
If you have a situation where you have fake identities of children on paper, where all you need is someone with a nurses license to sign, en masse, like robo-signing property foreclosures or rubber stamping CPS child removal orders, you can bill Medicaid for lots and lots of vaccines for the kids, while implementing another crafty privateering revenue hustles to privatize the judicial system and continue their campaign, to swashbuckle those children's trusts.
I am waiting to see what they do in Michigan.
Connecticut Often Did Not C... by on Scribd
Bill That Reiterates Connecticut’s Religious Exemption to Vaccines Advances
 |
| Sen. Derek Slap and Rep. Liz Linehan co-chairs Children’s Committee |
HARTFORD, CT — The Children’s Committee forwarded a bill to the House Tuesday that changes vaccine exemption forms to notify parents of the current law.
The bill had initially sought to remove school nurses as a person approved to witness a parent’s signature on a religious exemption form. That language was scrapped in favor of adding a disclaimer to the top of the form to let parents know a nurse has the right to refuse to witness their signature.
The new language would also require the Department of Education to send one written notice to each local and regional board of education and the Association of School Nurses of Connecticut a statement that says any school nurse can acknowledge or refuse to acknowledge a religious exemption.
Connecticut allows attorneys, judges, family support magistrates, town clerks, justices of the peace, and school nurses to sign the religious exemption forms.
“There are some nurses that have problems signing these papers and they have rights as well,” Sen. Christine Cohen, D-Guilford, said.
She said there are other people who can sign the form.
However, some parents objected to the legislation because not all the officials capable of signing the form also have to comply with health privacy laws under HIPAA.
Sen. Kevin Kelly, R-Shelton, said individuals have the right to privacy regarding their medical records.
He said the other individuals on the list are not bound by HIPAA like the school nurses. He said asking them to have others acknowledge their forms are “asking them to breach the privacy they have in their medical records.”
In 2015, the General Assembly passed a law that required parents to acknowledge their religious exemption annually. That was a year after one of the worst measles outbreaks in the U.S. following its elimination in 2000.
“This seems not to be a legislative issue. This seems to be an education issue,” Rep. Noreen Kokoruda, R-Madison, said. She said the legislation does nothing that isn’t already current law.
“Why would we need more legislation to educate people when it’s the law?” Kokoruda, who voted against the bill, said.
Rep. Gary Turco, D-Newington, said the best practices say vaccinations are very important to children’s well-being.
“We’re seeing cases across this country now where people aren’t vaccinating and there are serious consequences to that,” Turco said.
He said Connecticut allows for a religious exemption and there’s nothing in this legislation that changes that.
 |
| Rep. Noreen Kokoruda, R-Madison, with the face of |
“They’re not being asked to make a judgment,” Wilson Pheanious said.
Sen. Derek Slap, D-West Hartford, said he knows they’ve been getting a lot of emails from constituents on both sides of the issue and one of the arguments against the bill is the “slippery slope” argument.
“This is not getting rid of a religious exemption,” Slap reiterated. “This is not putting another obstacle in the way of parents claiming a religious exemption. This is simply restating what current statute already says.”
Those who oppose vaccinating their children for religious reasons believe the bill could be used as a vehicle to eliminate the religious exemption to vaccines.
Kokoruda said parents have every reason to be concerned that the bill could be used to eliminate their religious exemption. She said legislation intending to do one thing becomes something else all the time.
“It’s the nose under the carpet,” Kokoruda said. “...I just think this is the first step toward totally getting rid of religious exemptions.”
Rep. Liz Linehan, D-Cheshire, said she’s given everyone her word that she has no intention of using this bill a vehicle for getting rid of religious exemptions.
Linehan said she would like to eliminate the religious exemption, but will use another piece of legislation to accomplish it.
“I’ve made it very clear that I’m 100 percent for getting rid of the religious exemption, but you have my word that this bill is not the vehicle,” Linehan added.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
No comments:
Post a Comment