There is a certain hospital in New Jersey (let’s call it Hack Hosp; all names changed to protect the not-so-innocent) that announced it has a “Zero Tolerance Policy” for vaccines. All Nurses must get all vaccines. No excuses. Ignore that Supreme Court Justice who reminded everyone that the courts have determined vaccines to be “unavoidably unsafe.” [1]  Ignore conscience rights.  Ignore civil rights.  Ignore Informed Consent. Get in line and get that shot!

Ignore also the fact that, after you get the shot, you’ll be shedding viral particles for weeks. And if you are a Nurse, that means you’ll be shedding those particles onto sick people, some of whom have compromised immune systems.

Doesn’t matter. Get that shot!

But maybe Zero Tolerance is illegal.

“Laws protecting religious freedom and conscience rights are just empty words on paper if they aren’t enforced. No one should be forced to choose between helping sick people and living by one’s deepest moral or religious convictions, and the new division will help guarantee that victims of unlawful discrimination find justice. For too long, governments big and small have treated conscience claims with hostility instead of protection, but change is coming and it begins here and now.” [2]

But that change almost didn’t begin in Hack Hosp. The hospital’s “Zero Tolerance” policy was promoted by the administration as a lawful company policy.

In my capacity as a minister since 1973 I’ve engaged in pastoral counseling with hundreds of families concerned about their religious beliefs and forced vaccination. Until recently the law was clear: except in the two states with “coincidentally” the poorest health in the USA (West VA and LA) you could always opt out of vaccination if your religious (and as we’ll see, conscientious) beliefs forbid receiving such invasive “treatment.” In the past couple years CA has joined the no-vax exemption states and we’ll soon see what that does to children’s health there.

Now understand, I am certain it is unlawful for a state government to abolish long-standing vaccine exemptions. Even if the legislature created the exemption in the first place, that exemption rests not on state law, but on the universal right to Informed Consent and no government may violate that right, at least since Nuremberg Trials, with impunity.

We counseled four nurses from Hack Hosp who have done their own Informed Consent due diligence and became convinced that vaccines offered them no health benefit, but rather, put them and others at risk. They were aware of the science (or, more correctly, “pseudo-science”) behind vaccination. It’s not just Justice Sotomayor who understands that vaccines are unsafe. Medical Doctors, such as Rima Laibow MD, Natural Solutions Foundation Medical Director, know that too. Here is access to a paper Dr. Rima was invited to give at the prestigious All India Social Sciences Congress a couple years ago about the lack of vaccine safety and efficacy:

The nurses each received a notarized Pastoral Counseling Letter attesting to their bona fide conscientious objection to vaccination, and refusal to give Informed Consent.

The letter also reminded the hospital authorities that the law requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious (and conscientious) beliefs of employees.

We wrote:

“The correct ICD-10-CM Code that applies is Z28.1 “Vaccination not carried out for religious reasons.” This assertion of Religious Right is protected under state and federal law, including the First Amendment, the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Sec. 201, 202, 203 and 204. Communicant objects in writing that the administration of immunizing agents conflicts with religious tenets or practices.

Communicant requests accommodation of religious beliefs under the Civil Rights Act, and specifically, accommodation for [redacted]’s employment as a nurse.

On October 6, 2017 the then United States Attorney General released a Memorandum for all Executive Departments and Agencies regarding Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty. In this memorandum the Attorney General’s first point is that the freedom of religion is a fundamental right of paramount importance, expressly protected by federal law. The free exercise of religion is not a mere policy preference to be traded against other policy preferences. It is a fundamental right.

The Attorney General continues to say that The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the federal government (and any agency receiving federal funds) from substantially burdening any aspect of religious observance or practice unless imposition of that burden on a particular religious adherent satisfies strict scrutiny. Furthermore, a government action substantially burdens an exercise of religion under RFRA if it bans an aspect of an adherent’s religious observance or practice, or compels an act inconsistent with that observance or practice, or substantially pressures the adherent to modify such observance or practice. During 2014 a New Jersey Appellate Court [3] held that it violates New Jersey employment law for a hospital to terminate a nurse who refuses vaccination.”

I got a call from a clergy member of the “committee” reviewing the four applications. We had an interesting talk about ethics and whether it was reasonable to support the Nurses’ positions. We had a contentious half hour discussion wherein he expressed the usual pro-vax positions and thought people who were anti-vax were being “insincere” I told him we had individual counseling sessions with each Nurse and that reaching out to nurses and other health care people regarding vaccine exemptions is part of our expressive association ministry.

I argued that Informed Consent is an ethical issue that is appropriate for religious consideration. I cited the UN Bioethics Convention which strongly restates the application of Informed Consent. [4]

I reminded the caller that Nurses were each willing to accept reasonable accommodations, including wearing surgical masks, and that employers were obligated under the Civil Rights Acts to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs of employees. The courts have repeatedly held that conscientious beliefs are the legal equivalent of religious beliefs.

He told me about the hospital’s “zero tolerance” policy regarding vaccines. Unless a Nurse is vaccinated against Influenza, and some other diseases, they will be fired.

I told him about the 2014 NJ case and that, in my opinion, it was wrong to tell Nurses that they had a right to Informed Consent and/or a religious exemption, but would be fired if they exercised it — saying that such a firing would be wrong was exactly what the case said.

I also asserted while vaccine “science” is a pseudo science that I personally reject as false science, the Nurses’ conscientious objections were based on their sincerely held beliefs.

I cited the recent case won by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. where he forced the Secretary of HHS to admit that the annual vaccine safety reports which Congress first required in 1986 have never been submitted, not one. [5]

Remember, the 2014 case was about a nurse being dismissed because her objection was “philosophical” not “religious” and the court said, in essence, that is not a lawful distinction to separate conscientious objections from religious objections, so even if the exercise of Informed Consent refusing vaccines was “merely” philosophical, the exemption must still be honored.

“Zero Tolerance” vs Informed Consent — refusal to consent informed by legally protected religious/philosophical beliefs.

It was a couple weeks before the hospital made a decision to allow the exemptions, but first they sought to deny the application and tried every which way to convince the Nurses to surrender their exemption right.

I asked the Nurses to share that experience, and here is what they wrote:

“Thank you for collecting our experiences. I honestly feel we’ve been treated in a hostile manner by the department and organizational leaders. For example, the head [redacted] of [department] came to our dept with the vaccines.When asked if declination request forms were available she replied, ‘If someone wants to decline they can walk upstairs and get that themselves.’

“We were given a sheet that clearly states we have to wear a mask “within 6 feet of patient care areas.” Well the director of [redacted] made up her own rule that ‘unless you are actively consuming food, you must wear a mask everywhere in the hospital.’ I follow the printed rule of 6 feet. There is no reason for us to wear a mask in the locker room or the private staff lounge. The made-up rule is just one example of intimidation in the workplace.

“When I first brought my required paperwork up to [department], it’s hard to describe in words the looks and attitude the staff gave me. Asking me how long I have been with the church, etc. It seems that they are offended by my personal beliefs.

“I feel that wearing a mask and a sticker on my badge are violations of my own HIPAA rights. The sticker itself is even a horrible, negative black mark on my Professional Identification.

“Not to mention three of us were denied after submitting the same forms as [redacted], with no explanation until I went up to ask why and to appeal that initial denial. They really did their best to try to prevent us from exercising our rights, but I am glad they finally understood that they had to accommodate us. “

Another Nurse reported that [redacted] came up to the [department], had the charge nurse pull her out of her room without telling her why, just to make sure she was wearing her mask.

And finally, one Nurse wrote:

“Later that day I went to go speak to my director after work in his office, which is away from patient care areas, in street clothes. He asked me why I wasn’t wearing a mask. I said ‘6 feet!’ And the he said ‘It’s not me. Do you know I get emails every day asking if you are wearing a mask?’ I was like, wow. I don’t know who exactly the emails are coming from, but I would think whoever it is would have something more important to do than to check on me every day. I am compliant with the mask rule, as ridiculous as it is.”

Ridiculous, yes, but the mask might actually protect the Nurse from those who have been vaccinated and are shedding the viruses!

So, what is the “take away” from the experiences of these Nurses?

First, unless you assert your right to Informed Consent the school or workplace authorities will not protect that right. You ought to have your Advance Vaccine Card that asserts your legal right to Informed Consent as part of your personal Medical Directive. See here about that:

Second, those same authorities seek to divide and conquer. Is your objection medical or religious or philosophical? If you say one thing, you’ve excluded the others. That’s why the courts are holding, along with the former Attorney General and others, that there is no distinction.

Informed Consent covers all of the possible grounds for conscientious objection to vaccination. Or, no grounds at all. That’s the key point. You do not need a “reason” for refusing Informed Consent!

Third, if your employer fails to accommodate your sincerely held beliefs, complain to the Civil Rights Office. The Office now requires employers to notify employees of their Civil Right to Conscience and has the complaint form online. [6]

Take note, the flu vax for the last vax season was admitted by CDC to be merely 40% “effective” — less than one chance in two of “protecting” a vaccinated person from getting the flu.  “The overall vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the 2017-2018 flu vaccine against both influenza A and B viruses is estimated to be 40%.” [7]  Does that level of “protection” reach your threshold for accepting an “unavoidably unsafe” vaccine? Or will you assert your Informed Consent right and just say “No!”?

You must, however, assert your Informed Consent right or it will be ignored.

More about the law of Informed Consent here:

Thus, each free person has the absolute right to refuse any medical intervention for reasons of conscience, or for no reason at all.  No legislature has power to restrict the right of Informed Consent.

If that conscientious objection is based on personal religious beliefs then the Civil Rights Acts and their requirement that government accommodate religious beliefs come into play.

I’ve written about that here:

As then Attorney General Sessions said in a formal Attorney General Opinion:

“Laws protecting religious freedom and conscience rights are just empty words on paper if they aren’t enforced. No one should be forced to choose between helping sick people and living by one’s deepest moral or religious convictions, and the new division will help guarantee that victims of unlawful discrimination find justice. For too long, governments big and small have treated conscience claims with hostility instead of protection, but change is coming and it begins here and now.”

If the State government is persecuting religious vaccine conscientious objectors, it’s time to complain to the Civil Rights Conscience Division, right here:

Yours in health and freedom,

Ralph Fucetola JD
President – Institute for Health Research
Vice President – Natural Solutions Foundation


[1] See Justice Sotomayor’s 2011 dissent in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, where she discusses the history of “unavoidably unsafe.”



[4] which provides: “Article 6 – Consent – 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.”


[6] Note: More Information on the Office of Civil Rights and Religious Conscientious Objection.

Complaint forms here:

At the beginning of this year HHS issued a proposed Rule to protect conscientious objection. The new Rule requires that covered employers (which includes all hospitals receiving federal money) tell you the following:

45 CFR Part 88
[Docket No.: HHS–OCR–2018–0002]
RIN 0945–ZA03
Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority
AGENCY: Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of the Secretary, HHS.

Appendix A to Part 88—Notice Concerning Federal Health Care Conscience and Associated Anti-Discrimination Protections

[Name of recipient, the Department, or Department component] complies with Federal health care conscience and associated anti-discrimination laws and does not exclude, treat adversely, coerce, or otherwise discriminate against persons or entities on the basis of their religious beliefs or moral convictions. You have the right to decline to participate in, refer for, undergo, or pay for certain health care-related treatments, research, or services (such as abortion or assisted suicide, among others) which violate your conscience, religious beliefs, or moral convictions under Federal law.

If you believe that [Name of recipient, the Department, or Department component] has failed to accommodate your conscientious, religious, or moral objection, or has unlawfully discriminated against you on those grounds, you can file a conscience and religious freedom complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, electronically through the Office for Civil Rights Complaint Portal, available at or by mail or phone at: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Room 509F, HHH Building, Washington, DC 20201, 1–800–368–1019, 800–537–7697 (TDD).

Complaint forms and more information about Federal health care conscience and associated anti-discrimination laws are available at

Dated: January 18, 2018.
Eric D. Hargan,
Acting Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2018–01226 Filed 1–19–18; 11:15 am]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *