Reparations for Households Denied Access to Tax-funded Schooling & Alignment of State Education Funding with Forthcoming Sugar-Placebo Tested Vaccine Policy

Health
,
1

Background:

The Federal Government has held Highway Funds hostage to improve the quality of lives, safety, or a combination thereof several times in the past. Resultantly, states have a high incentive to adopt the goals of the federal government or find ways to fund the gap. To date, no state has ever funded the gap.

In 2023, Elementary and Secondary Funds received by the states from the US Government stood at $61.1 Billion. During the same period, Highway and Transportation funds were $49.1 Billion or 20% less. See: Which states rely the most on federal aid? | USAFacts (November 13, 2024)

Clearly, education funds are a strong and compelling lever to get states to adhere to federal policies. Withheld Federal Highway Funds has resulted in capitulation, how much more important are education dollars to state/teacher union budgets?

Policy Proposal:

Any state that makes a vaccine, drug, pharmaceutical, biologic, or any other medical pill, shot, or procedure compulsory for its child population (birth to aged 17) to receive public or private education and or participate in sports or extracurricular activities shall forfeit all federal funds used for education purposes the subsequent US fiscal year. Annually, the forfeited funds shall accrue for the state’s benefit in a segregated account until such time as the state complies.

Federal Funds used for education purposes is defined as the trailing forty-eight month average of annual dollars deployed by the state at schools for school programs, after school programs, school sports, education (in class and outside of class), special education, and transportation services associated with child education aged 0 to 17 whose source was federal agencies, US congressional monies or similar. This includes state monies allocated to the aforementioned in substitution for federal funds if said federal funds were allocated elsewhere by the state.

States who make medical procedures, vaccines, biologics, or similar compulsory for public or private education and wish to adhere to the policy to receive the accrued federal education funds at a later date may unlock their funds by complying with the above standards. However, 1/3 of the total state’s accrued funds shall be divided by the number of children denied access to public or private education and forced into home-school or self-schooling.

The funds will be placed into an Education Trust benefiting the child and may be used for continued home-schooling expense (including compensating the parent/guardian at a rate equal to the average fully burdened teacher salary in their district), for books, online classes, curriculum, and museum passes and travel & lodging expense to the same. Unused funds benefiting the child will be made available to the child for college and post-graduate tuition and fees. Unused funds beyond that may be assigned for similar purpose to benefit the child’s children or other family members by blood or adoption for similar educational purposes. Upon the child’s 60th birthday that was denied education services by the state, the funds in the education trust shall be distributed to the effected person outright. The outright distributed funds shall not be subject to state tax. The outright distribution funds will be subject to federal tax at 25%. The child’s Education Trust will be custodied, managed and invested by either JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, or Vanguard in conservative asset allocations. The parent or guardian will select the investment firm used. All funds will be in segregated, insured accounts whose insurance cost are the responsibility of the asset firm.

Parents refusing to vaccinate their children during a period of life-threatening outbreak as defined by the CDC may have their children segregated from the student population remaining at home until either vaccinated or the outbreak has subsided. Chicken pox is not considered an outbreak event. The child will receive education services via online delivery produced and originated by the school district including two days of in-class instruction commencing two weeks after outbreak in a segregated area of the school along with other segregated students. Computer and internet access for the academic content shall be the responsibility of the parent/guardian. Likewise, transportation to and from school will be the responsibility of the parents during periods of outbreak. School subsidized or provided food services may be suspended to segregated children at the school’s discretion.

The parents will pay a fine equivalent to $5 in 1905 ($176 today – December 2024) per school-enrolled child for the vaccine refused that is directly linked to the specific outbreak. If a single vaccine does not exist for the outbreak, no fine shall be levied. This fine can only be imposed once per child per lifetime per the specific outbreak.

Any school that retaliates, punishes, ostracizes, or seeks recourse against students that choose not to adhere to a published vaccination or medical procedure schedule shall be subject to federal fines equal to six times the districts fully burdened average salary per event. 1/2 of the fine shall be remitted to the child outright tax free. 1/2 shall be remitted to the federal government. 1/2 of the child’s or parent’s/guardian’s legal fees will be paid by the district regardless of the outcome. All of the legal fees will be paid by the district if the child’s claims are victorious.

Lastly, parents, families, or guardians whose children were denied access to either education or extracurricular school activities (musicals, arts, sports, etc) due to vaccine refusal in whole or part prior to the above policies taking effect shall: receive a state and federal tax subsidy/credit equal to the average salary, inclusive of benefits, of the teachers in their district each year they were denied education services. Said subsidy/credit for years denied service will be applied to future household income until the subsidy is exhausted and will transfer to the child(ren) in the event the parents or guardian are or become deceased.

This aligns the state’s need for money and the public’s perception of vaccine efficacy with common sense ideals that let the parents choose what and when substances are put in the bodies of our children. A child’s education and extracurricular development should not be held hostage to a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic/pharma model.

1 Like
2

Nope. Government should have ZERO ability to mandate ANY procedure, pill, medication, drug or any form of anti-bodily-autonomy. This cannot go forth.

1 Like
3

Thank you for your reply, but I think something may have been lost in translation.

Paramount to the policy’s proposal is preserving and protecting the fundamental right that parent’s/guardian’s control what is or is not put into their child’s body and when. Some parents may want to fully vaccinate their children. Others may want to partially vaccinate. Others still may simply want to delay the timing so the body can develop. Others may refuse wholly. The policy achieves this while not holding hostage the child’s education based on medical legislation.

The policy addresses two issues. First, it gives states a strong economic incentive to not violate the fundamental parental right stated above. Second, it looks to make reparations to students and families who have chosen to not adhere to state guidelines based on personal, religious, or medical reasons and are or were denied access to school and school services. Bluntly, no reason is ever needed to reject a medical treatment or biologic by any person at any time. No means no.

The policy seeks to acknowledge the many facets of the vaccinate-to-get-educated issue. If you reside in NY, you are probably aware of the hardship families have faced since losing religious exemptions. Great policies make concessions to placate various viewpoints while preserving fundamental rights – in this case control of what is or is not put into the bodies of our children as it pertains to school attendance. As such, the policy needs to appease those that believe in the efficacy of vaccines as well as those that don’t (for any reason).

This policy recommendation accomplishes this.

For those that believe fully in vaccines and their benefit, they are free to do as they want while still having their kids attend school, business as usual. An unvaccinated child should pose no risk to a vaccinated child if vaccines work. The question becomes, what to do during an outbreak? The 1905 Jacobsen v. Mass case never made vaccination compulsory. This is often miscited. What the case clearly states is a governing body may enact vaccination requirements but stops short of forcing them distributed into the person. If a person refused to be vaccinated, they had to pay a $5 fine. This appeased both parties. Those that believed in the protection of vaccines and those that did not. Many states today do not make such appeasement in their vaccination-education policy. NY is all or nothing. Refusing just one vaccine results in removal from school and doctors face strong peer pressure to toe the line to not issue medical or other exemptions – even to vaccine injured children.

To further pacify the pro-vaccine population, it is fair to anticipate their desire to have children segregated from vaccinated children during an outbreak. Again, this is not the place to discuss the merit of this logic (if vaccines protect your child, an unvaccinated child should not be a risk), but there are outlying circumstances where an autoimmune deficient child or vaccine injured/rejecting child may be at risk. In NY, it can be estimated that 2,015 students (.083% of the student population) are enrolled who are born with a form of immune deficiency (1:1200 people equals ~ 2,015 of 2,418,000 K-12 students enrolled) - Trends in Pediatric Primary Immunodeficiency: Incidence, Utilization, Transplantation, and Mortality - PMC and https://data.nysed.gov/enrollment.php?state=yes. The recommendation to segregate non-vaccinated children after the school has a few weeks to prepare accommodates these special needs cases while still giving children access to state and federal tax-funded public education. It also keeps up segregated children’s moral and gives them community instead of isolation. As a parent, I would prefer school run remote learning as I would not want my child near children shedding potentially new, untested, live vaccine products; segregated or not. However, we cannot all live in bubbles.

When NY legislators removed the religious exemption to vaccines, approximately 26,000 students (1.08% [~26,000/2,418,000]) of the population) were forbidden access to schools across NY state. They were forced into homeschooling, compliance against the parent’s will, or families moved. No exceptions were made. However, during the illegal alien surge from 2020-2024 well over 26,000 students (20,000 in 2023 alone Thousands of migrant kids are starting school in NYC. Is the system prepared? : NPR) with little or no vaccination or medical records were allowed immediate attendance (next day) to NYC schools. Not only was the unvaccinated child influx larger than all the students removed who lost their religious exemptions, they were concentrated in the NYC area – a clear double standard.

As a society, we need to seek perspective and education. For the vaccine curious, I’d suggest the first 80 pages or so of Turtles All the Way Down, Vaccine Science and Myth. For the diehard “don’t tread on me” we need to focus on the war, not the battle.

The war is ensuring our kids, regardless of vaccination status, have full use and access to public education and services. The only way to accomplish this is linking state fiscal reliance on federal education dollars to vaccination policy and parental rights. In doing so, concessions have to be made by all parties – for the combined sake of our children whose academic success leads to societal success.

It is reasonable (though I do not like it) to pay to a fine ($176 in today’s monies) during an outbreak per the Jacobsen case. It is reasonable to be segregated from school during an outbreak to protect the medically feeble. It is NOT reasonable to remove children from education services if they are not vaccinated or partially vaccinated. The policy corrects this unreasonableness. It sets aside funds for children that were or may be denied access to education during their formative years and for parents that carry the financial costs of having to become the academic educators.

As a curious citizen, I look forward to true random, double blind, saline or sugar pill testing of vaccines and their regiments. This is true science. That aside, the government should never be allowed to infringe on parental rights or hold education hostage based on vaccination status - something this policy recommendation protects.

1 Like