URGENT OREGON: OHA is Attempting to Circumvent the Legislature and Change Rules to Mandate New Vaccines without Exemptions

Published: Dec 9, 2021

Our Stand: At-A-Glance

  • The Oregon Health Authority, Public Health Division has proposed rules related to “School and childcare exclusion, public health, safety requirements for childcare providers, youth programs” (OAR333-019-0010 and OAR 333-019-1005) which effectively grant unelected members of the Oregon Health Authority the authority to "determine" if a vaccine, such as the 5-11-year-old COVID-19 immunization, should be added to the list of vaccine requirements, and it allows OHA to set an arbitrary "School Exclusion" date pressuring all students to meet or be "Excluded" from in-person attendance at school if they do not comply. These rules are attempting to do what SB 442 (2015), HB 3063 (2019), and SB 254 (2021) have all failed to do, which, in essence, is to mandate immunization as a prerequisite to attend school in Oregon and openly discriminate against students and families who exercise right to decline.
  • Currently, OHA does not have this ability to do this without said rule change, as the required list of immunizations is approved by the Oregon legislature and only one already-established exclusion date is legislated, annually each February, with little public reminder that, by law, Oregon has medical and non-medical exemptions for children.
  • These proposed rule changes also appear to do more damage as well, here is what we have “unearthed,” so far:
    • They do not require that OHA offer Exemptions, as is currently required by law for all other immunizations.
    • The changes also adjust or remove definitions for natural immunity.
    • They lay the groundwork to exclude anyone who already has established natural immunity or individuals who wish to exercise the right to decline a medical treatment.
    • They prevent any methodology from testing to use the “Test to Stay” option outlined by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE).
  • The Public was not given adequate time and information to review the proposed OAR rule changes; even members of the Oregon House Interim Special Committee On COVID-19 Response were unaware of the 11/15 stand-alone public participation meeting planned and thus were unable to participate.
  • These proposed rule changes would circumvent the legislative process to create new laws that entire committees of elected legislators review prior to passing before the Governor has the final say to sign it into law.
  • OAR changes go into effect much swifter than new laws (often 30-90 days), effectively disturbing the current school year and pressuring families already struggling to comply or face losing school services.
  • For the full story, please look below.

Have A Question?

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA), according to their website, “values transparency, accountability, and the wise use of public resources.” In fact, Director Patrick Allen’s calendar page further states that he “believes that sharing his appointments calendar will help him step back from his daily meetings and ensure he is meeting with, and listening to, a wide variety of people, partners and stakeholders.”

The people of Oregon do not feel heard, nor do they feel that OHA is being transparent with what these proposed rule changes would set the stage to do.

OAR 333-019-0010 and OAR 33-019-1005 proposed rule changes effectively grant unelected members of the Oregon Health Authority the authority to “determine” if a vaccine, such as the 5-11-year-old COVID-19 immunization, should be added to the list of vaccine requirements, and it allows OHA to set an arbitrary “School Exclusion” date pressuring all students to meet or be “Excluded” from in-person attendance at school if they do not comply.

Currently, OHA does not have this ability to do this without said rule change, as the required list of immunizations is approved by the Oregon legislature and only one already-established exclusion date is legislated, annually each February, with little public reminder that, by law, Oregon has medical and non-medical exemptions for children.

OAR 333-019-0010 and OAR 33-019-1005 proposed rule changes do not require that OHA offer Exemptions, as is currently required by law for all other immunizations.

These proposed changes are attempting to do, by rule versus a democratic legislative process, under the Governor Brown’s Emergency Declaration, what they have failed to do with SB 442 in 2015, HB 3063 in 2019, and SB 254 in 2021 where efforts to remove non-medical exemptions were made and estimations of 60,000 Oregon children would have been kicked out of school and/or in-person learning opportunities.

As the proposed rule explains:

“COVID-19 is still spreading in the community and particularly for programs providing services for children who may not yet be able to be vaccinated. It is important to have these requirements for communicable disease plans, exclusion of those with COVID-19 and who are susceptible to COVID-19, and to require certain recordkeeping to assist with contact tracing, including notifying, as soon as possible, in coordination with the local public health authority (LPHA), all families and other individuals if there has been a case of COVID-19 on the premises.”

OHA are creating a clear narrative that children’s service programs, such as schools, youth sports, day care, etc., are significant source of COVID-19 spread. Oregon schools have not shown this to be the case, and schools that remained open showed that there is no significant evidence that this is the case. In fact, Colt Gill, director of the Oregon Department of Education is on record with saying that schools are “not super spreader sites.”

Further, the proposed rule changes allude that because some “cannot” get vaccinated, all who will not or cannot should be excluded. It also shifts the burden of record keeping and contact tracing onto the “provider” and away from the LPHA, and requires a person’s positive status to be shared out—without their explicit consent—to all other families and individuals whether the case was sourced at that location or not.

Additionally, the statement included in the proposed change, “exclusion of those with COVID-19 and who are susceptible to COVID-19,” literally can encapsulate every child, staff member and person engaged on location.

The changes also adjust or remove definitions for natural immunity on one hand, and essentially force compliance to attend school by way of showing “immunity” paperwork without passing a new direct mandate or law but trying to arrive at the same effect through an OAR change quietly without the public fully understanding the potential ramifications.

Narrowing the very definition of immunity to be vaccine-induced-only poses a grave risk and unbelievably dangerous precedent that ignores scores of peer review research indicating that natural immunity is arguably by far more robust. Definition changes and language removal in the proposed rule changes, in essence, allow OHA to require paperwork to show “proof” of immunity for “non-required vaccines” as stated in desired change.

Research for COVID-19 also shows that ADE’s are more likely to occur after vaccination if the individual has had COVID infection prior to receiving the EUA-authorized vaccine.

Accepting vaccine-induced immunity would thus translate into a need to “show” immunity, which vaccine records.

This warrants another opportunity for the public to weigh in for many reasons. We are asking that a longer period of time is granted for personal and public testimony.  

  1. Is there Justification for a permanent rule, based on data analysis of hospitalizations, deaths, and recovery rate of school aged children 0-19 from Jan. 21, 2020- November 28, 2021:  Statistically doesn’t constitute conditions that would require making a permanent statewide rule, and that local control over adequate health responses would be best suited.

According to OHA from Jan 21, 2020 to November 28, 2021

Total Cases Oregon Age 0 to 19 – 70,461 Cases (18.9% of Cases in Oregon)

Total Hospitalizations Age 0 to 19 – 606 Hospitalizations (0.86% of School Age Cases have needed hospitalization)

Total Deaths Age 0 to 19 Age – 5 Deaths (0.007% of School Age Cases have resulted in death)

Total Recoveries Age 0 to 19 Age – 99.993% of Cases have Recovered

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/covid19/Documents/DataReports/Weekly-Data-COVID-19-Report-2021-12-01-FINAL.pdf 

According to CDC from Jan 21, 2020 to November 28, 2021

Total (Oregon) MIS-C Age 0 to 19 – 25 to 49 (Max 0.07% of Cases have been MIS-C) Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children…” condition that appears to be linked to covid 19

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#mis-national-surveillance

For Reference Statistical Significance typically doesn’t come into effect until a percentage reaches 3 to 5%

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-to-calculate-statistical-significance

FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RULE TO BE PUT IN PLACE:

  1. Bullet point recommendations: The two rules proposed for adoption and amendment concern:

(Page 2 of the proposed rule should read):  (highlighted wording replaced with bold print

  • Potential exclusion of infected staff, children and students from schools and children facilities, if they are exposed through close contact to an individual (COVID-19) with provable SARS-COV-2 infection.
  • Public health and safety (requirements) guidance for childcare providers and youth programs.
  1. There is potentially misuse of intended rule that would prevent equity and inclusion, and would be potentially discriminatory. An equitable solution and mechanism should be in place for children, not vaccinated and are at no risk, to return to school ASAP.

 Some of the key problem areas with proposed OAR changes:
(A) A close contact, as that is defined in the Oregon Health Authority’s Disease Investigative Guidelines, published at

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/COMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGCOMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGGUIDELINES/pages/index.aspx

What is to say that they can’t arbitrarily update the linked “Guidelines” as they see fit?

An item they are proposing to change that may raise some concerns makes us question the full intent with the statement “lacking evidence of immunity;” will they require children to show “evidence of immunity” for school or be put on quarantine if potentially exposed under their ambiguous updated statements around susceptibility and exposure? Despite continued cases of documented vaccine failure through “breakthrough cases,” the policies frame the issue that those receiving the COVID vaccine are less susceptible, which we know they are actually not, but they treat those who have received the vaccine differently with way less caution. This is discriminatory.

In section 1(d), the definition of “susceptible,” they changed section (A) from:

(A) For a child, means lacking documentation of immunization required under OAR 333-050-0050”

To:

(A) For a child, means lacking documentation of immunization required under OAR 333-050-0050, or if immunization is not required, lacking evidence of immunity to the disease.

Recently, it was disclosed to Oregon School Superintendent Marc Thielman through his local county health person (who was just recently relocated to another position when she left for vacation) whom he worked with collaboratively to support his custom district mitigation plan that was much better than state guidelines that the state just adopted as their own but relabeled–she told Marc point blank that they are actively TRYING to link outbreaks to schools and realized that she was transferred because she would not intentionally do that.

An important item to note was that the single “hearing” for the proposed rule changes was scheduled for 11.15.2021 at 10:00 a.m.

However, in order to testify you had to request permission to appear remotely by sending an email to Secretary of State prior. This was required to even receive a link to the videoconference. This virtual meeting link was never provided to the public, even if they only wanted to view the hearing.

A phone number was provided for the audio only version of the hearing, which is an odd way of holding a “public” hearing. But more interesting was that fact that while the meeting was scheduled to end no later than 12:00 p.m., they stated that it “may close as early as 10:20 a.m. if all individuals that have signed up to testify have had the opportunity to enter their comments into the record.”

Clearly they were not expecting many public comments. Past legislative bills that have attempted to mandate vaccinations have received thousands of public comments at each opportunity for input on the proposed policies.

The reasons cited for the proposed rule changes were:

For OAR 333.19.0010

“…to amend this rule to clarify the definition for “evidence of immunity” to COVID-19 as well as defining what it means to be exposed to COVID-19. In addition, in child care and school settings, students or staff who are susceptible to COVID-19, can be excluded from those settings if they have been exposed.”

For OAR 333.019.1005

“It is important to have these requirements for communicable disease plans, exclusion of those with COVID-19 and who are susceptible to COVID-19, and to require certain recordkeeping to assist with contact tracing, including notifying, as soon as possible, in coordination with the local public health authority (LPHA), all families and other individuals if there has been a case of COVID-19 on the premises.” 

The changes.

In OAR 333.019.0010

In section 1(a) E, the section that described what  “evidence of immunity” is, they removed:

(ii) Having received a dose of COVID-19 vaccine after having documented SARS-CoV-2 infection; or

They also changed the definition of “exposed” from:

(b) “Exposed” for purposes of being susceptible to COVID-19 means having been:

(A) Within six feet of a confirmed COVID-19 case or presumptive COVID-19 case for 15 minutes or more within one day; or

To:

(b) “Exposed” for purposes of being susceptible to COVID-19 means having been:
(A) A close contact, as that is defined in the Oregon Health Authority’s Disease Investigative Guidelines, published at https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/COMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGCOMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGGUIDELINES/pages/index.aspx

; or

Looking over the proposed rule change to 333.019-0010 on page 5 they are changing the definition of “exposed.”

The old definition was:

(b) “Exposed” for purposes of being susceptible to COVID-19 means having

been:

(A) Within six feet of a confirmed COVID-19 case or presumptive COVID-19 case for 15 minutes or more within one day; or

(B) In contact with the infectious secretions or clinical specimens of a confirmed COVID-19 case or presumptive COVID-19 case.

The new definition is:

(b) “Exposed” for purposes of being susceptible to COVID-19 means having been:¶ (A) A close contact, as that is defined in the Oregon Health Authority’s Disease Investigative Guidelines, published at https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/COMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGCOMMUNICABLEDISEASE/REPORTINGGUIDELINES/pages/index.aspx

Oregon Health Authority : Oregon Disease Investigative Guidelines : Investigative Guidelines : State of Oregon

Oregon Disease Investigative Guidelines. Download Investigative Guidelines. For reportable diseases lacking Oregon-specific investigative guidelines or case report forms, please contact the epidemiologist on call for assistance at 971-673-1111.

www.oregon.gov

; or

OHA don’t actually provide a definition within the actual proposed OAR rule changes. They just point the public to a URL saying that the linked document is where the definition is published.

In section 1(d), the definition of “susceptible,” they changed section (A) from:

(A) For a child, means lacking documentation of immunization required under OAR 333-050-0050”

To:

(A) For a child, means lacking documentation of immunization required under OAR 333-050-0050, or if immunization is not required, lacking evidence of immunity to the disease. 

In Section 3 they changed:

A school administrator shall exclude a susceptible child who attends a school or children’s facility if the administrator has reason to suspect that the child has been exposed to measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, or COVID-19, unless the local health officer determines, in accordance with section (6) of this rule, that exclusion is not necessary to protect the public’s health.

To:  A school administrator shall exclude a susceptible child who attends a school or children’s facility or a susceptible employee of a school or children’s facility if the administrator has reason to suspect that the child or employee has been exposed to measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, hepatitis A, or hepatitis B, or COVID-19, unless the local health officer determines, in accordance with section (6) of this rule, that exclusion is not necessary to protect the public’s health.

Note in the new section they added employees. However, employees were included in the original in Section 4. In the new version Section 4 was removed. So I see no net change.

Section 5 (formerly section 6) was changed from:

(6) If a local health officer receives a request from a school administrator to determine whether an exclusion is appropriate under this rule, the local health officer, in consultation as needed with the Authority, may consider the following non-exclusive factors in making the determination: 

(a) The severity of the disease; 

(b) The means of transmission of the disease; 

(c) The intensity of the child’s or employee’s exposure; and 

(d) The exposed child’s or employee’s susceptibility to the disease. 

To:

If a local health officer receives a request from a school administrator to determine whether an exclusion is appropriate under this rule, the local health officer, in consultation as needed with the Authority, may consider the following non-exclusive factors in making the determination:
(a) The severity of the disease;
(b) The means of transmission of the disease;
(c) The intensity of the child’s or employee’s exposure; and
(d) The exposed child’s or employee’s susceptibility to the disease, including having initiated a vaccination series for the disease.

What was added was: ”including having initiated a vaccination series for the disease.”

In OAR 333.019.1005

The entire following section was added:

(1) The requirements in this rule remain in effect unless the State Public Health Director or State Public Health Officer issues an order stating that the requirements in this rule are no longer necessary to control COVID-19. If such an order is issued the Oregon Health Authority must provide notice to interested parties and otherwise take reasonable steps to ensure notice of the order is provided to those affected by this rule, in accordance with ORS 183.335(1). The State Public Health Director or State Public Health Officer may also rescind such an order, and such a rescission must also be noticed as provided in this section. In determining whether this rule should remain in effect the State Public Health Director or State Public Health Officer will take into consideration as least the following information:
(a) The degree of COVID-19 transmission, as measured by case rates, percent positivity, and any other objective metrics indicative of current or potential transmission in Oregon.
(b) COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths.
(c) Disparate COVID-19 related health impacts on communities of color and tribal communities. (d) Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In section 3(a) {formerly 2(a)} they removed the phrase “and provide the plan to the Oregon Health Authority or local public health authority,”

From the original which said:

Develop and follow a written communicable disease management plan for preventing and controlling communicable disease, including COVID-19, and provide the plan to the Oregon Health Authority or local public health authority, that includes: 

Chrissy Scott

Executive Assistant and Social Media Manager

A labor and delivery nurse with a lifelong passion for maternal and fetal health, Chrissy Scott left her job of 19 years after learning the truth about the harms caused by the medical system. In 2009, she was mandated by her employer to receive the H1N1 vaccine during her first trimester of pregnancy with her second child. She was assured that the vaccine was “safe and effective” for pregnant women, but her son was born with a kidney defect that could have been fatal. She didn’t connect the dots to vaccine injury until several years later when the declining health of her oldest son drove her to seek answers outside of allopathic medicine.

This personal journey ignited in her a new passion for truth and transparency in health care. As SHF’s Executive Assistant, Chrissy facilitates communication and local advocacy initiatives alongside Leah Wilson for their home state of Indiana. She also manages and creates graphics for SHF’s social media accounts and the website’s swag shop.

Chrissy earned her nursing degree from Anderson University and served her entire career at her local hospital. While she’s no longer a floor nurse, her five very active boys frequently test her nursing skills! She homeschools her children and has been co-owner of a successful home décor sign business with her sister.

“Parents, being the experts on their own children, are best suited to make decisions for the well-being of their family. To do this properly, they must be given full and accurate information and be free from force or coercion.”

Ellen Chappelle

Writer/Editor

Ellen Chappelle serves as SHF’s resident wordsmith. A seasoned writer and editor, she’s enthusiastic about ensuring that our content is clear, concise, and inspiring.

Ellen is most energized by working on projects that transform lives. A truth seeker as well as a journalist, she’s disturbed by the lack of accuracy in today’s media and determined to help share fact rather than fiction. And having found greater healing with alternative approaches, she’s also passionate about preserving our freedom to make informed health choices.

Past projects include serving as regional editor of a dog magazine, color and trend specialist for a small cosmetics company, arts columnist, newspaper reporter, ghostwriter, and creator of website content for artists and small businesses.

With a degree in journalism and theatre, Ellen is also a performer. She enjoyed singing and dancing on a cruise ship and traveling with a national musical theatre tour, as well as recording industrial videos, television commercials, and radio voiceovers. She also creates handcrafted jewelry in wire, chain maille, and fused glass.

“Despite what some would have us believe, the fact remains that this nation was founded on biblical principles by people who wanted freedom to worship God and live their lives without government involvement. It’s never been more critical to fight for those rights.”

LEAH WILSON

Executive Director and Co-founder

An attorney with a background in complex litigation and advocacy, Leah Wilson is passionate about children’s health and has researched and worked on child welfare issues for more than a decade.

The overmedication of children in foster care as a form of behavior management is what compelled Leah to become an advocate and foster parent. During her time as a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children, Leah witnessed the rampant use of psychiatric drugs among foster kids. She also discovered that, in addition to many extensive requirements, the state had a policy that all foster children and foster families be fully vaccinated, without exception. Through her involvement in law, health and the foster care system, it became abundantly clear to Leah that the single most important issue affecting child welfare in the United States is the practice of one-size-fits-all medicine via medical mandates. This motivated Leah to expand her advocacy beyond foster care to all children nationwide and to start Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) in 2019.

A graduate of the Saint Louis University School of Law, Leah holds dual bachelor degrees in political science and Spanish from Indiana University. In addition to her advocacy work with SHF, Leah is the owner and former operations director of MaxLiving Indy, one of the largest natural health centers in the Midwest. She is also an educator on holistic health as well as a sought-after speaker on issues ranging from religious rights to greening your home.

“Parental rights and religious freedom are God-given natural rights that cannot arbitrarily be taken away by government authorities. Parents are the single most important factor in a child’s success; I stand in full support of this sacred relationship.”

Sayer JI

Director and Co-founder

Sayer Ji is a widely recognized researcher, author, lecturer, activist, and educator on natural health modalities. Among his many roles, he is an advisor to Stand for Health Freedom, a reviewer and editor of the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, an advisory board member of the National Health Federation, a steering committee member of the Global GMO Free Coalition, and the co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed Inc., a revolutionary scientific validation framework.

Most notably, Sayer is the founder of Greenmedinfo.com, the world’s most widely referenced, evidence-based natural health resource of its kind. He founded the platform in 2008 to provide an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. Today, Greenmedinfo.com has more than a million visits per month, serving as a trusted resource on myriad health and wellness topics to physicians, healthcare practitioners, clinicians, researchers and consumers worldwide.

Sayer attended Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, where he studied under the notable American philosopher Dr. Bruce W. Wilshire. He received a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy in 1995, with a focus on the philosophy of science. His new book, Regenerate: Unlocking Your Body’s Radical Resilience through the New Biology, was released in March 2020 and is an Amazon bestseller.

“I truly believe that education will be our greatest shield against accelerating the erosion of civil liberties, including the right to bodily sovereignty, as well as the greatest catalyst for positive change on this planet moving forward.”

Bailey Kuykendoll

Associate Director

Designer and visual marketer Bailey Kuykendoll began advocating for health and religious freedom and parental rights in 2014 after learning she was pregnant. A self-described skeptic, she’s not afraid to ask questions and do copious amounts of research to reach her own conclusions.

She’s also not afraid of hard work. As SHF’s Relationship Manager, Bailey truly keeps the organizational boat afloat. Working closely with health freedom advocates in each state, she ensures that SHF has campaigns for health-freedom-related bills and petitions on our website and across social media, spreading the word to encourage people to contact their legislators. She builds campaigns, graphics, website pages, and relationships.

Bailey earned a design degree from Harrington Institute of Design in 2008. She then served as a production assistant on several shows for HGTV, followed by working behind the scenes on the X Factor, small indie films, music videos, and documentaries. Bailey joined Health Freedom Florida after moving to the East Coast, becoming co-president of the grassroots organization in 2019. While at Health Freedom Florida, she successfully filed a state bill designed to stop discrimination based on your health status. She joined SHF in the fall of 2020.

“God placed a calling on my heart back in 2008 to be a part of something bigger for Him. Twelve years later, the opportunity came knocking to help others lean into their natural-born rights and take a stand for themselves and their families. I knew this is where I was called to be, and I have never looked back.”

Valerie Borek

POLICY ANALYST

Valerie Borek is a passionate advocate for health rights and family privacy. A mother of two with degrees in law and biochemistry, she is perfectly positioned to lead SHF advocates through complex health-rights policy. Her work is guided by a love for American values, uncovering truth, and a passion for empowering others. Valerie has served as SHF’s policy analyst since 2021.

Valerie’s understanding of the value of freedom to make one’s own health care choices is not just academic. Health freedom has kept her boys alive and thriving. Her choice to have home births jump-started her advocacy for health privacy. Her eldest son survived a rare and deadly cancer because her family was able to navigate medical care while holding onto values that were sometimes at odds with recommendations.

Before joining SHF, Valerie specialized in health and parenting rights at her boutique law firm, especially surrounding birth and vaccine rights. She advocated for informed consent in health care and transparent food labeling in her state. She helped found the Birth Rights Bar Association and was honored to present their argument to the Delaware Supreme Court that midwifery is not the practice of medicine, in support of a trailblazing midwife.

“Health is the foundation of how we show up in this world to love, serve, and create. Americans are blessed to live in a country that gets stronger the more we protect fundamental rights, like informed consent and privacy, so individuals and families can thrive.”

Mary Katherine LaCroix

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND NONPROFIT ADMINISTRATION

Mary Katherine LaCroix became involved with SHF as a volunteer in 2019 when the religious exemption for childhood vaccines was at risk in her home state of New Jersey. She believes strongly that parents have the responsibility for their children’s health, education, and faith formation and that only they have the right to make medical decisions and manage their care.

She has worked in fundraising for more than 25 years at various educational, cultural, human services, and political organizations. A graduate of the University of Scranton, she holds a degree in History and English Literature.

Mary Katherine is thrilled to have this opportunity to work with and help grow SHF, believing that together we can achieve even greater impact in protecting our rights and caring for our loved ones. She enjoys spending time with her husband, two children and large extended family, as well as volunteering to support the special needs community.

“Parents are taught that they must trust the experts. That’s what we did, until we learned that the experts can be wrong and don’t always know what is best for your child. Parents should instead feel empowered by their natural, God-given ability to advocate and care for their children. SHF is here to give them the tools to do just that.”

Sheila Ealey

Political Analyst

Dr. Sheila Lewis Ealey is the founder and former director of the Creative Learning Center of Louisiana, a therapeutic day school for children who are on the autism spectrum or struggling with other nonverbal intellectual disabilities. The wife of a former U.S. Coast Guard Officer, she is also the mother of four children. Her son was diagnosed with severe autism spectrum disorder at 18 months. He is now a young man and considered moderate and emerging.

Sheila and her twins were featured in the documentary “Vaxxed.” She has traveled extensively, advocating for medical freedom. She continues to educate disenfranchised parents about their fundamental rights to religious and philosophical exemptions, their ability to live sustainably on a limited budget, and the importance of nutrition and biomedical interventions for optimum health with autism. She also writes individual homeschool curriculums for parents of children with autism or intellectual disorders. Sheila is a trustee for the Autism Trust, USA, and on the board of directors of Children’s Health Defense.

Over the past 20 years, she has educated herself to use natural healing modalities for the body and brain. Her formal education includes degrees in communication, special education curriculum, and a doctorate in Educational Leadership in Special Education. Sheila serves as an assistant content advisor and political analyst for SHF.

“It is not the Constitution’s job to protect our liberties, as it is not a philosophical document but a legal one. Its purpose is to limit the powers and authority of our federal government in hopes of preventing an intrusion upon our unalienable rights. We are obliged to maintain our government within its limits.”

Pin It on Pinterest