“Prohibition against Discrimination Based on the COVID19 Vaccine”
Sponsors Rep. Ransom & Rep. VanBeber
Hearing May 12 in House Health & Insurance Committee at Colorado Capitol
Provide testimony online, in person, and/or in advance email to members of House Health and Insurance Committee and your State Representative
This bill was brought forward by people of color who have been historically affected by medical experimentation and disparities in access to preventative health care. However, this bill is important to ALL freedom minded people, so please engage on this issue even if you are a newcomer to the controversial politics of modern vaccine mandates. Ultimately, this bill honors the ethics of uncoerced choice in medical decisions for all people and maintains access in public and private venues.
This bill is necessary in Colorado because the annual SMART hearing in 2021 (see January 26, 2021 audio archives for House Health and Insurance Committee) conveyed sentiments by CDPHE and legislators that the citizens of Colorado are incapable of making informed medical decisions for themselves. The medical associations, who have a strong presence of over 100 lobbyists at the Colorado Capitol, have convinced your elected and appointed leaders that anyone who chooses to opt out of an experimental drug is uneducated, and therefore, coercion should counter your choice. This bill ensures that values of equity, justice, and protecting minority groups are consistently implemented in a bipartisan effort. Currently, 43% of Coloradans have been vaccinated, with dramatic decreases in appointments, indicating up to 57% of people may refuse the vaccine, including children under age 16.
Federal Level
Currently, the SARS-Cov2 vaccine is not approved by the FDA, and is under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Federal law is clear that no entity can mandate an EUA drug, not even the military.
State Level
However, the state of Colorado has taken a posture to use DORA regulations and CDPHE rules to promote businesses and schools as the agents of coercion and discrimination. The state will revoke licenses for businesses and withhold funding for schools that do not impose proof of the vaccinated and restrictions on the unvaccinated. These rules and policies are all void when they conflict with or lack authority from laws. Nevertheless, the state of Colorado has already demonstrated its coercion strategy by implementing the unscientific COVID19 Dial, which is based on modeling and not valid data. Unelected policy makers are calling the shots, while the citizens have been left out of the stakeholder process at every level of government. Furthermore, the state is financially incentivized to sell a vaccine, and subsequently has threatened the licenses of doctors who have prescribed cheaper prophylactic drugs with long-term safety and efficacy established. The state intends to coerce your medical choice and make alternatives unavailable.
County Level
Local elected officials report they are being coerced into implementing the “The Five Star State Certification Program” under threat that “compliance complaints” will result in a requirement to reimburse CARES funds to the state. There is case law at the federal level against when the “power of the purse” becomes mandatory while cloaked in voluntary language. The state is using the nature of the voluntary local program to coerce what the state deems is “best practice.” County Health Departments are complicit in suggesting “best practices” lacking both stakeholder process and ADA compliance.
The first part of the bill is a Legislative Declaration (section 2, pages 2-6). This section informs but it does not become law. The proposed additions and revisions to statute are contained in sections 3, 4, and 5.
The legislative declaration provides a factual summary of the risk of vaccines, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Systems (VAERS), the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) that removed liability from vaccine manufacturers, the novelty of mRNA vaccines in humans, and the history of informed consent and medical ethics established at Nuremberg. None of this historical background on vaccine risk is as salient to testimony as non-discrimination in public access established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the American Disability Act of 1990 (ADA).
The revisions to statute section focuses on non-discrimination based on the SARS-CoV2 vaccine. Most people are unaware that the Healthy People 2020 goals working in conjunction with Vaccine Passports intend to implement an entire CDC Adult Vaccine Schedule with numerous booster shots, and not limited to the SARS-COV2 vaccine.
A strong declaration would simply add vaccination status to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent expansions. The Act outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, [insert and vaccination status] and required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and the right to vote.

Communicating the federal requirements of ADA is also imperative. The government must be compliant with ADA. A “no exception” policy for people with medical exemptions and disabilities is in direct violation of federal law. For a facility to restrict full access, it must prove the following: “A business may exclude an individual with a disability from entering an establishment or participating in an activity or service if that individual’s presence would result in a direct threat to the health and safety of others. This determination must not be based on generalizations or stereotypes, and must be based on an individual assessment.” Inability to wear a mask or exemption from a vaccine does not prove that an individual is a direct threat. Furthermore, exclusion or curbside services is not an accommodation to public access.
For all other “recommended” or “mandated” vaccines in school and employment settings, an individual can submit antibody testing known as titers testing, in lieu of a vaccine or exemption. This documentation demonstrates that the person is immune. Nature (2021) has published data that T-cell responses indicate SARS-COV2 immunity is lasting 8 months or longer, which is durable to last the entire Influenza and Pneumonia season from October to March of each year in the northern hemisphere (now reported as PIC or Pneumonia, Influenza, COVID season). Natural Acquired Immunity is a critical missing talking point in the COVID-19 dialogue.

Colorado lawmakers in the Democratic Party have consistently voted in party line in support of bills (HB14-1288, HB16-1164, HB19-1312, SB20-163) that ignore these risks. Do not waste your advocacy trying to explain drug risks to members of the committee who have yielded authority to medical authorities who profit from vaccines without liability. The members of this committee will likely not respond to your emails or calls, nor give you a stance on this bill. But it is still important to make those contacts and show-up to demonstrate support for this bill. For a variety of reasons, people have not been showing up at the Capitol and engaging in the legislative process. Threatening to mobilize against re-election is likely an empty threat at given widespread voter fraud. Forming allies with chambers of commerce, county officials, and school district leaders to push back on the state level coercion and getting those reports on record is very valuable. No one group is going to win this multi-year campaign. Each year, we will push the revised bill to go farther in the process from committee to floor, in both houses, to a governor who has been stripped of his unconstitutional one year of “emergency” powers.

Don't have the Telegram app? Get it here.