Madam President, the Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 is a measure adopted by the District of Columbia that would allow for children 11 years old and older to consent on their…
Madam President, the Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 is a measure adopted by the District of Columbia that would allow for children 11 years old and older to consent on their own, without their parents' knowledge or acquiescence or consent, to being vaccinated. They could receive a vaccine, contrary to the wishes of their parents or without them even knowing.
Young children don't necessarily know their own medical histories, their families' medical histories, potential allergies, nor do they have the adult judgment that is sometimes needed to make an informed decision as to consent for a particular medical procedure or treatment or even vaccination, which is exactly why parents make healthcare decisions on behalf of their own children.
Parents play the most important role in caring for the health of their children. Moms and dads are at the heart of their children's education and care, and it is crucial that they be able to make decisions about what kind of healthcare is best for them and about the timing of it and certainly that they be not only able to make the decision but also that they be aware of it in the first place.
The DC legislation that I referenced a moment ago goes so far as to hide children's vaccinations from their own parents, even after it has occurred, in other words. This information is withheld from the parents. It requires doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and even public schools to conceal their children's vaccinations from their parents.
It would also fly in the face of parents who may have religious beliefs causing them to object to vaccinations or who have made the decision for their children to forgo, either on a long-term basis or for a particular period of time, certain vaccinations--like the HPV vaccine, for example.
Furthermore, it would pave the way for allowing children to consent to other types of medical treatment without parental knowledge down the road, other treatments in other contexts that might have long-lasting, significant impacts on their health.
Look, as a parent myself and as someone who, as a parent, believes in vaccinations, I think it is imperative to realize that regardless of how you, in particular, feel about vaccines, even if, like me, you support the idea of being vaccinated and having your children vaccinated, remember that there are those who don't share those views, and remember that separate and apart from their views, there are some people whose family histories and personal medical experience might reveal some tendency toward a reaction, an idiosyncratic reaction that could be harmful. In some circumstances the timing of a vaccination can also be important. These are all considerations that a parent ought to be able to make, and in every jurisdiction that respects the independence of parental rights, these ought to be decisions that are made by parents and certainly ought not be decisions made by children as young as 11 years old without their parents' consent or even their knowledge.
In light of these concerns, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 7 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Madam President, I appreciate the thoughtful words of my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Delaware. I am grateful anytime someone is willing to recognize
that I have been a consistent champion of federalism and localism, self-rule.
He and I agree that those principles are important. My friend from Delaware, being a former Governor himself, understands the sovereignty of the States and the need to respect their judgment.
This is a different circumstance here than that. This would absolutely be inappropriate for us, in any other circumstance, to tell a State or any political subdivision of any State--a city, town, a county, any other subunit of one of our 50 sovereign States--it would be inappropriate for us to weigh in on a local policy issue like this. It is, in fact, part of our constitutional design that each State and each community within each State needs to be able to express itself and make its own decisions based on its own unique preferences.
Here is a very significant difference with respect to the District of Columbia. It has its own provision of the Constitution--in fact, its own clause in article I, section 8, known as the enclave clause. This provision, found in article I, section 8, clause 17, gives Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over what we now call the District of Columbia. It wasn't called that in 1787, when they wrote this. It hadn't yet been designed, created, but it described the area to be created out of land donated by one or more States, no more than 10 miles square that would serve as the seat of our national government.
There was an understanding the Founding Fathers had that the seat of government ought not be under the control of any single State, but rather it ought to be in a special status. To that end, the Founding Fathers put ultimate legislative jurisdiction in the hands of Congress, not in that district itself, not in the hands of the States that donated the land to create it, but in Congress.
Now, the DC Home Rule Act, of course, gives substantial authority to the DC City Council and Mayor. As it relates to this legislation, it gives the DC government 30 business days after the passage and enrollment of this legislation, and in that 30 business-day period, Congress has the ability to disapprove of that legislation, which would stop it from being implemented when it is set to take effect on March 18.
Let's remember what we are talking about here. We are talking about the most basic fundamental choice that a parent has relative to his or her child: the authority and the discretion to decide when, whether, how, and under what circumstances and what time certain medical procedures may be performed on the child. You might disagree with the medical judgment of a particular parent and at a particular moment, but I am not aware of any State that would make the decision on a statewide basis to take this choice away from parents and to say that a child as young as 11 years old could make his or her own choice and not only deprive a child's parents from being able to make that decision but also be able to deprive that child's parents from ever even learning about it. These things are sometimes not without consequence.
Imagine, for example, a circumstance in which the parents are aware of some particular medical condition, a medical procedure that this child has recently had. Imagine circumstances in which a child's siblings or the child him or herself had previously reacted to a particular vaccination in a particular way or imagine a circumstance in which religious considerations come into play. Do we really want to deprive parents of the ability to make that decision?
I am not aware of any State legislature that would make that choice. I certainly hope they wouldn't. But regardless, and even though this would not be our choice, this would not be within our authority if it were not within the District of Columbia and, therefore, within our plenary legislative jurisdiction under the enclave clause to make this decision from Congress. It is our decision here because, at the end of the day, the DC government itself is acting on authority delegated to it by the Congress.
So whether you like it or not, whether you like, in the abstract, the idea of localism either as embodied in federalism or even more generally than that, you can't escape the fact that under our constitutional system, we are the lawmaker for DC, no less than any State's legislature is the legislative body for that State. If you choose not to decide here, you still have made a choice. You still have made a choice to approve of that legislative body stripping away critical protections, critical rights that parents have. We have made that decision not just because it sounds like the right thing to do, but anyone who has ever been a parent understands that it has to be the parent's choice. A parent has to be in a position of making these decisions and, at least, for crying out loud, be made aware of this. This takes away not only their authority or their rights but even their awareness of what has happened to their child.
So, yes, I understand the concerns of localism. They simply don't apply here.
Under our constitutional system, under the Constitution itself, the document to which we all have sworn an oath to uphold, protect, and defend, this is not a State decision.
To the extent it is a decision for the DC government, for the DC City Council, and Mayor, that is authority that we have delegated to the District, and it is authority that is ultimately ours. We are ultimately answerable to the people, to those who have elected us, to make sure that is exercised responsibly.
So if you don't like the fact that we are doing this--for that matter, if you don't like the policy of this, if you as a State lawmaker wouldn't be comfortable with this policy being adopted in your State--you have not only every right and every authority, but I believe you have a moral obligation to stand up to this piece of legislation. Do not let this kick in on March 18. This is wrong. It is not something we have to accept, and it is certainly not something that the Constitution even allows, much less compels.
I yield the floor.
