As the undisputed master of public relations and political flimflam, the Clinton Administration had led a mostly bipartisan coalition to pass the most Draconian laws since the old Sedition Acts. It has been dressed up for the public as consumer-friendly, happy-meal measures to deal with children’s health insurance, tax and welfare cheats, health Insurance portability, patients’ rights, illegal immigrants, and deadbeat parents. But will Americans swallow it? Putting a Happy Face on Tyranny The following document was provided by This article originally appeared in the Well Beings newsletter, a publication of Vaccinations Alternatives, NYC, <va-sk@juno.com Note: The information on this website is not
a substitute for Last year Congress voted on whether to authorize funds, and thereby implement, several regulations proposed by the Clinton Administration that will significantly reduce our ability to keep our medical affairs private, make medical decisions for our children, travel or open a bank account, or apply for a broad range of licenses or government services. These regulations —authorized by legislation passed in the last few years—had also paved the way for individual states to commence computerized vaccination tracking programs. Such programs have already improved the ability of many state health and welfare agencies to harass and coerce parents to vaccinate their children. It’s also going to facilitate the establishment of a national vaccination database on all children in the U.S. Ironically, while the Administration characterizes the opponents of these overreaching laws as “anti-government libertarians”, “rigid Constitutional extremists”, and “gun nuts”, these groups will not be the most adversely affected by these laws. Instead, it will be average conscientious parents wishing to make appropriate medical decisions for their own children. In fact, look no further than the thirty or more states that are aggressively enforcing child vaccination requirements through their newly established, federally funded vaccination database tracking systems. In these states, so called “unfit” parents are losing custody of their own children to child protection agencies for having the “audacity” to say, “That vaccine disabled my first child. I will not allow it to be given to my other children.” How It Began Initiating a national vaccination tracking infrastructure requires some form of national ID system to be in place. Clinton and his associates snuck in such a system by packaging it as health care reform. A National ID Card first appeared innocuously concealed in the Health Security Act of 1994 as a “healthcare benefits card” that Hillary Clinton insisted had to be carried by every American—even if they refused to be covered by the plan—under penalty of law. Jon Christian Ryter described how the Act became law: “The Clintons knew a National ID Card spelled problems, regardless what name was put on it. However, as a healthcare card that provided each American with thousands of dollars of free medical care, they correctly surmised that the ramblings of the right wing zealots could be easily dismissed by the mainstream liberal media. The media did its job well. According to the media, the Health Security Act would provide healthcare for the millions upon millions of uninsured Americans. The media even obliged by ignoring the obviously flawed cost assessments as well. Hillary demanded that Congress pass the Health Security Act without any changes. But Congress rejected it as too expensive and experimental. Buried in the National Archives, in the working papers of the Hillary Clinton healthcare plan, was the game plan in the event the Health Security Act went down in defeat. It was to implement another healthcare act that provided healthcare for children. They thought, no one would dare deny healthcare to children. Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch introduced the plan in Congress, and the Health Security Act passed in 1994.” Once it became law, the bureaucracy possessed the authority to simply expand it to include anyone and everyone. But the legislation still required funding to create a biometric health care card. The authority to do it was there, but not the money. For the money, the Clinton administration turned to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The foundation, created by the founder of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical and health supply company, obliged and funded the experimental program which was kicked off in three western cities. (Note: The lawsuit by groups that were barred from the First Lady’s health care reform meetings revealed that Hillary Clinton—a past Program Director of RWJF—and nearly 1000 of the 2000 people on Ira Magaziner’s Interdepartmental Working Group were either employees, officials, health policy fellows, grantees, contractors or grantee institutions of RWJF.) The card recorded the inoculation records of children, as well as everything from DNA typing, to the individual’s medical, psychiatric and financial history. And unlike an ID in the form of a National Driver’s License (described later), this Health Passport Card for at least one of the pilot cities (Denver) contained a tracking chip that could track the movements of each Health Passport card holder. How It Was Expanded In addition to children’s health, The Clinton Administration wanted to establish a national ID number system to deal with “welfare reform”, “illegal immigration”, “healthcare portability”, and “gun control”. They ignored arguments that it was not essential to deal effectively with these issues by placing our individual liberties at risk. As we pointed out in our last issue (“Big Brother Is Watching”), there must
be a unique number for a government to efficiently track your activities. To use Social
Security numbers for this purpose, the 1974 Social Security Privacy Act and other
protections were nullified (by permitting the SSA to send SSNs of babies born since
12/31/90 to each State’s Bureau of Vital Statistics, without securing parental
consent, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining vaccination registries) by
legislation enacted between 1994 and 1996. In the guise of complying with the GATT
provisions and to locate “deadbeat dads”, H.R.3453 was passed in 1995. To deal
with illegal immigration, H.R. 2202 was passed in 1996. In effect, this allowed the
Transportation Department to mandate that Social Security numbers (SSN) be included on
state-issued driver’s Although using a centralized unique number system reduces the costs and redundancy of
many functions of government, there are great dangers as well. Lack of safeguards invites
a variety of abuses, such as theft of data or unauthorized access by persons or
corporations, or the spread of From Law To Enforcement Before any of these laws can actually affect us, implementation mechanisms and guidelines must be proposed by the intended enforcement agencies, and then Congress must decide whether to appropriate funds for them. Much of that activity began last year. But groups as diverse as civil libertarians and ultra conservatives had managed to delay some of the laws from being implemented. Before we discuss vaccination tracking specifically, here’s an itemized list of the various implementation proposals considered in the previous session of Congress, the dangers they pose to our liberties, and their current status: (EIN) Tracking Health Care through Employers. As part of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) had proposed rules to identify patients through the tax identification
number (TIN or SSN) already assigned by the IRS. The National Standard Employer Identifier
(EIN) is intended to help eliminate paperwork, simplify activities such as enrollment in
health plans and payment of health insurance premiums, and save money for consumers. Under
the proposed rule, health care (NPI) National Provider Identifier, (also part of HIPAA, see above) will track all those who provide health care services or equipment through one or several linked registries. Since every electronic, and perhaps paper, transaction will be required to use the NPI, tracking of patient data may be possible. Using NPI, government can track the whereabouts, residence, credentials, and practice of every health care professional in the nation, from doctors to nursing assistants. Government can track not only providers who treat government recipients (Medicare and Medicaid), but all providers. No provider will be able to relocate w/o informing government of his whereabouts. Objections: NPI is invasion of personal and professional privacy, and a prohibition on freedom to practice. Government determinations of medical necessity or cost controls may be used to increase revenue from fines and penalties. Providers may fear government reprisal regarding diagnosis and treatment decisions and treat patients less aggressively than their professional judgment prescribes. Since all health care transactions must use the NPI, the government may be able to track individual patients through their providers without the patient’s consent. May push citizens into black market medicine particularly for privacy reasons. Places government in the role to decide what constitutes “acceptable” health care. (NID) National ID. Social Security number (SSN) to be used on state driver’s licenses. As a result of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a federal agency may only accept as proof of identity a driver’s license or identification document that contains a visible or electronically readable SSN, with one or more security features (magnetic strip, bar code, hologram, etc.). In addition, the SSN may become the unique patient identifier and allow medical record linkages. Objections: If implemented, this will allow all citizen transactions to be monitored, all data on citizens to be linked, and identities to be stolen (it happened in Virginia until they took the visible SSN off the card). As a de facto national ID card/internal passport, it would enable the federal government (not the states) to track, and potentially control everyone’s movements throughout North America. As such, it is contrary to the original intent and guarrentee that SSNs would not be used for identification. (Rules were issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.) (UPI) Unique Patient Identifier. (also authorized from HIPAA above). The purpose is to assign every American a “unique health identifier”: a number that could be used to create a national database that would track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Patient health records could be moved as they switch from one insurance plan to the next. Old records would be easier to retrieve. Billing would be streamlined and more efficient. A national disease database could be created, offering unlimited opportunities for scientific study. Objections: No penalties for violations of privacy and confidentiality, and is virtually unenforceable if there were. Abuse could be widespread, and very damaging in that medical information is inherently more personal by its nature. Currently, computers at one managed-care company cannot communicate with those at another. But once different plans can talk to one another via a single reference number, patient privacy will be virtually nonexistent. Current Status Of The Regulations Essentially, EIN requires employers to use SSNs; NPI requires health providers to use them; UPI requires you (and possibly others) to use them; and NID will require state motor vehicle departments to use them. Many arguments were made against these rules. Rep. Ron Paul, whose amendment to place a one-year moratorium on financing these rules had failed, said that they lacked constitutional authority: “Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people.” By the end of the legislative session, Congress merely disallowed any money that was appropriated in the general funding bill to be used for issuing a final federal regulation to implement the NID (federal drivers license). But other funds, even reserve or slush funds from other legislation, could be used to do so. But given the fact that it was the major government funding bill, it would be difficult. But there was no language to prohibit it either. Another clause had suspended Clinton’s Executive Order 13083, which had, in effect, authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue the NID rules. This year there’s still a fair chance for an outright repeal of the NID section of the bill in the wake of the widespread public opposition that was demonstrated last year, and after the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators—an influential pseudo-private, quasi-government organization—had withdrew its decade-long support for the use of SSNs on driver’s licenses, and recommended the repeal of the provision. The group of health identifiers did not fare as well. The unique patient ID (UPI) was not repealed, however it cannot be instituted unless it is specifically re-enacted into law by new legislation. On the other hand, Congress allowed the use of funds to enact the Provider ID system (NPI)—a federally issued number and national tracking system on all health practitioners, and the inclusion of the employer tax identification number (EIN) on every medical bill, claim, treatment approval or denial, and patient record that is electronically transacted. On January 8th, 1999, Congressman Ron Paul introduced the Freedom and Privacy
Restoration Act of 1999. This amendment to the 1999 Labor, HHS Appropriations Bill was
supported by the American Assoc. of Physicians and Surgeons, the ACLU, and others.
Fortunately, the amendment had passed and the funding for federal health agencies to
create and assign UPIs was Send a “thank you” letter to Congressman Paul: 202-225-5785 fax, 202-225-2831 phone, <rep.paul@mail.house.gov> email. Finally, the often-mentioned “Patient’s Bill of Rights” was the latest
among the Administration’s talking points, and has bipartisan support for many of the
provisions that rely on the same mandated tracking of patients (UPI, NPI, EIN) and the
accompanying privacy and confidentiality Vaccination Tracking The most oppressive and pernicious use of a unique identifier involves tracking the vaccination status of children. In the hands of state health bureaucrats intent on carrying out a (spurious) mandate, the medical, philosophical, or religious convictions and rights of people are inevitably violated. As the most pro vaccination president since Jimmy Carter, the incentives and mandates coming from Clinton’s Administration have never been greater than they are now. It requires an inexhaustible supply of arrogance to claim to know better than you what is best for your child. As the following events clearly show, Clinton and his associates were up to the task. During the 1993 public policy debate over the massive Health Care Plan proposed by First Lady Hillary Clinton, a broad-based, non-partisan coalition had defeated the implementation of a federally-funded vaccination database that was a component of the Comprehensive Child Immunization Act. This database would have established a tracking mechanism for every child born in the United States. The coalition was successful in having the database authorization removed from the legislation. Six months later in September 1993, an amendment was covertly attached to a bill that allowed for the creation of state and local inoculation databases, in contrast to the federal database that raised so much opposition. A $417 million federal price tag was initially attached to pay for the implementation of the state databases, with additional funds awarded as incentives to states, proportional to their vaccination compliance rates. At the earmarked rate, these “incentives” given to state health departments can amount to about $20 billion nationally. What administration would rationally consider spending these sums—and allow drug companies to reap enormous profits—just to increase vaccination rates among pre 2 year-olds a mere 10%. Nevertheless, the amendment was approved, and to date about two-thirds of the states in the U.S. have fully functioning vaccination databases. The creation of these state databases have been accomplished in no small nmeasure to several federal agency mandates and the passage of the mammoth Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in 1996. HHS Secretary Donna Shalala signed an order that allowed the Social Security Administration to release all newborn’s SSN to the states for the establishment of the state databases. HIPAA mandated that every patient, employer, provider, and health plan be given a unique health identifier number; that standards for electronic transmission be enacted; and that national code sets for collection of individually identifiable medical information be established. The bill allows the HHS Secretary to establish her own privacy guidelines for federally-funded medical databases—including the state vaccination databases—if Congress does not enact their own privacy standards before August 1999. To date, HHS recommendations have opposed parental consent requirements for release of medical information when they define the situation to “be in the interest of public health.” Amendments that HHS endorses to protect privacy for implementation of HIPAA registry proposals have all included this imprecise, intentionally open-ended exception to consent. Early in 1993, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala represented the administration’s position unequivocally: “This is an attempt to immunize every preschool child, not just poor children”. This is in spite of the fact that the U.S. has already achieved a 98 percent vaccination rate for children entering kindergarten, before any massive government-operated vaccine tracking registry. Evidence Of Abuse Numerous abuses happening now on the state and local levels are just a preview of
what’s likely to occur with a national tracking and enforcement system. Children who
are not part of the immunization registries are being denied health insurance coverage,
and enrollment in public and private daycare, elementary schools, and colleges; parents
have been denied public assistance benefits. Some parents that have not participated in
the registries, or who veered from following the standard vaccination schedule have been
charged with neglect, abuse, or endangerment, and have had their children seized merely on
the word of health officials, even before any finding of fact in a court. State child
welfare agencies have often assisted a vindictive former spouse to bring The National Immunization Program’s (NIP) aggressive outreach activities, dubbed “Reminder/Recall methods,” have harassed and punished parents and health-care providers who do not comply with the government requirements. These activities would include mailings, phone calls and home visits that could lead to on-the-spot vaccinations. The NIP’s goals to “gather wide-ranging information”, and “to identify and target interventions in every pocket of need”, may be a clue why they want information on extended adult family members included in the database. To defer issues of vaccine safety and effectiveness, health officials have disseminated the myth of neglectful or ignorant parents. However, non-compliance does not necessarily mean the parents are irresponsible. It is more often to the contrary, as Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-Founder & President of NVIC (the national parent and educational organization leading the opposition to vaccination registries) had stated before the National Vaccine Advisory Committee Immunization Registries Workgroup on Privacy and Confidentiality on May 14, 1998: “Educated health care consumers instinctively know that a one-size-fits-all, narrow-minded approach to disease control is dangerous when genetic variability and unique environmental factors can put some children more at risk for vaccine-induced injury and death than other children, and yet almost no child is screened out of the mass vaccination program.” This article has summarized various tracking databases that will soon be compiling profiles on U.S. citizens. But vaccination registries that have been in place for at least a year in many states demonstrates that government officials cannot be trusted with private medical information. The recent example of Texas Health Dept. officials that were caught building a vaccination database by “mining” birth certificate records and Social Security applications before it was legal to do so, should be a warning to the more trusting among us. In the next issue, WB will survey the various state vaccination registries and tracking systems and detail some of the violations to privacy, medical, and parental rights. However, commenting on the abuses happening now on the state level, Agneta Breitenstein, director of the Health Law Institute in Boston, said: “There are three things that are always true when registries are created: One, there will always be more information collected than is needed to complete the task; two, it will always be kept longer than we are told; and, three, it will always be used for purposes other than intended.” Threats On The Horizon With the establishment of state databases, the health care establishment has the necessary framework to initiate the National Immunization Registry Plan, which is being developed now by National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) and the CDC’s National Immunization Program (NIP). The intent of this registry effort is to integrate all of the state databases into one central (i.e. federal) tracking system controlled by the CDC and HHS. This new system will track every child, using information gathered from both public and private health systems. In the face of opposition by civil liberties and parent groups, NIP has openly and consistently favored mandatory inclusion of all children in the registry system without consent of the parents, and to include personal family data that goes far beyond medical and vaccination status, and with few limits on its dissemination. NIP’s position on privacy is clear: “State laws intended to ensure privacy have presented barriers to immunization registries in some areas. Preemptive Federal legislation is needed…” As one recent CDC publication stated: “CDC supports the ultimate goal of enrollment of all U.S. preschool children in a state or community immunization registry.” NVAC’s position is identical to NIP’s in all major respects. Congress is also considering legislation that would implement a federally operated immunization database to tag, track down and force adults to comply with federal vaccination policies. People in professions like health care, education, or law enforcement are likely to be the most vulnerable to vaccination mandates enforced with this system. But it will expand to people working in the food industry, and other service-related professions. It will be accomplished through the assignment of a “unique personal identifier”, as outlined in the UPI regulations described earlier. UPI had not been repealed last year, but merely defunded for 1999. Going beyond just vaccinations, most registry advocates hope that “immunization registries can contribute toward what could ultimately be more comprehensive clinical and preventive data bases.” (Immunization News, Pennsylvania Forum for Primary Health Care, Vol.2, Issue 2, Summer 1997). In other words, immunization registries can become the cornerstones for complete government patient databases. Today, immunizations. Tomorrow, diagnoses and prescribed medications. Next year, psychiatric or marital counseling records. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Gary Krasner is Director of Coalition For Informed Choice, PO Box
230426, Special thanks to Dawn Richardson, heading the opposition to the vaccination registry in Texas, whose research provided the bulk of this article. Dawn Richardson, Co-founder, PROVE, Parents Requesting Open Vaccine
Education, prove@swbell.net (email), |
