March 5, 2011
Louise Kuo Habakus:
“My name is Louise Kuo Habakus. I’m the director of the Center for Personal Choice. Together with the people who are standing here today, we represent over 100,000 families, professionals, and advocates who work for the interests of the autism community, for vaccine safety, and for those who care about health freedom.”
Mary Holland, Esq spoke first.
“We’re deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. It violated the social contract. It told parents that if your children are injured by vaccines, tough luck! You’re on your own. . . .
“You’ll hear that this program doesn’t work, you’ll hear that it’s broken, and it’s not remotely a court. There are no rules of evidence or procedure, or discovery, or a jury of one’s peers. It’s a program that is stacked against families…because vaccine injuries make vaccines look bad. Children in the U.S. are conscripted into a war against infectious disease but without real consent and without adequate information. With this Supreme Court decision, many more children are likely to be injured and left dead on the battlefield. The government and doctors assert that vaccines are safe and effective, but the Supreme Court acknowledges that they are indeed, unavoidably unsafe. With this decision, the Supreme Court grants almost blanket immunity from law suits to an entire industry for compulsory products. If vaccines are really so safe and effective, why does industry need so much protection? And why are children left so defenseless by law with no access to any court? Justice Sotomayor got it right in her dissent. She said Congress intended to leave the courthouse doors open for children who have suffered severe injuries from defectively designed vaccines. She wrote that the majority’s decision was policy-driven and that the Court had usurped Congress’s role. We look to Congress to hold hearings about the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and to fix this system. The VICP is unacceptable in its current form.”
Russ Bruesewitz: 4:53-8:33
“We are… parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who in a recently decided Supreme Court case was denied the opportunity to hold the drug manufacturer accountable for the vaccine she received at six months of age. Almost 20 years ago, …literally two hours after receiving the vaccine, she started to seize uncontrollably, eventually regressing into brain damage and a lifetime of around-the-clock care. While the court’s decision was obviously disappointing for us personally, the future concern for all parents faced with a vaccine decision should be ONE: What incentives are in place to assure manufacturers are offering the safest alternative? And TWO: What help is available if their worst fears are realized and a vaccine injury occurs after complying with mandated vaccination?
“From our perceptive, the court’s decision answered both of these concerns with a definitive NONE. Putting this in context, the Court’s decision has granted an immunity to drug manufacturers not afforded to any other industry. … Recalls have become commonplace for … companies when discovering their products have safety issues in the marketplace. Drug companies on the other hand, have no such responsibility, legal or otherwise. Imagine Toyota ignoring question regarding the public safety of their braking system, secure in the knowledge that if found to be legitimate, they wouldn’t be prosecuted, incur any loss of revenue, or even be forced to take corrective action. That’s what’s been decided. While initially tempted to recall all the obstacles we experienced leading up to the Court’s decision, our overriding frustration has been our experience with the inappropriately named, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, specifically, its Vaccine Court component. Originally established by Congress to swiftly and generously to address vaccine-injured petitioners in a less adversarial setting, our experience as has most everyone’s, been anything but the intended. If now left with this court as the only recourse for dealing with the long-term care needs of a vaccine injury, its credibility needs to be restored. Our legal journey is over. The final verdict has been rendered and our daughter’s condition remains the same. Everyday parents are placing their trust in a vaccination program they assume has the safeguards in place to warrant their participation.
“As a parent, how would you answer these questions?
“Is our Hannah an acceptable casualty of the greater good being served?