Bismarck – Disbelief in medical institutions and research dominated discussions in the northern Dakota of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, February 19 Other targeting the exceptions of vaccination.
Refused by voting 40-53,
He sought to criminalize the use of fluoride in any public water supply and would have done the act is punished with a fine of $ 500.
“Fluoring our water is a serious health risk and not only endanger our communities. It makes them hit,” Rep. Nico Rios, R-Williston, calling on fluoride treatments “immoral” to force people to “take a medicine independently of their consent. ”
“Does a voter have the right to demand their neighbor to swallow a particular medicine, even if they are against their neighbor’s will?” He said.
Fluoride treatments are based on “controversial” science, Risios said, putting more damage to health than benefits – from weakened bone density to reproductive damage.
There was no further discussion on the floor.
At a hearing of the House’s Human Services Committee on the bill, the Report of the Rep. Matthew Heilman, R-Bismarck, said he was inspired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. children.
During the hearing of the bill, opponents argued that the addition of fluoride to water improves oral health. They noted that the sites are already capable of getting fluoride from public water supplies.
Dentists landed on each side of the subject.
“Enqued Mass Mair Mayication” is the way Jim Lundstrom of the Lundstrom Family Federation described the addition of fluoride to public water supplies to his written testimony in favor of the ban.
Unlike the testimony, William Sherwin, executive director of the North Dakota Dental Union, said the ban on fluoride from waters would remain against the will of both the northern Dakotans and health professionals.
Just below half of the internet testimony favored the ban on fluoride, including Commissioner Washburn City Keith Hapip and a handful of North Dakotans.
Those who opposed the ban included the State Ministry of Health and Human Services, the Public Health of Fargo Cass, the city of Grand Forks and the Plant Inspector Menoken Water.
With the aim of increasing the criteria that allow exceptions to compulsory vaccines and would require the Ministry of Health and Human Services to extend how the public is training on these exceptions.
The Bill Rep. Donna Henderson, R-Calvin, said that its purpose is to protect “medical freedom” and better inform North Dakotans about the dangers of vaccines.
“No one should be forced to endanger their health to comply with the command if it cannot prove safe and effective,” Henderson said. “Many people are forced to take the vaccine or lose their job.”
The idea that non -vaccinated people are a danger to those who are vaccinated is a “error”, according to Henderson.
“If that were true, it would mean that vaccines don’t work,” he said.
Mr Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, contradicts this statement, saying that the purpose of vaccines is to have a fairly high rate of immunity “to prevent those who cannot get a vaccine from the disease, not the reverse” .
“This is a wolf in sheep’s clothes,” Murphy said. “To make it really simple, this is a bill against vaccination.”
A handful of the northern Dakotans provided a supportive testimony to the hearing of the bill’s human services committee, many of whom took a position based on COVID-19 vaccines.
The doctors and nurses of Chi St. Alexius, the Northern Dakota Medical Association, the North Dakota Hospital Association, the North Dakota School Council Association and other public health professionals opposed the bill.
Opponents said it was unnecessary because vaccine warnings have already been posted by the Ministry of Health and Human Services and there are already wide exceptions.
The chamber closely rejected the bill 44-48.
