08/02/2025 / By Lance D Johnson
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has launched an unprecedented assault on religious liberty, demanding that all U.S. states eliminate all exemptions—religious or philosophical—for childhood vaccines. They also demand that medical exemptions be limited, ignoring the plight of vaccine injured families and threatening to subject these children to further vaccine damage.
The AAP demands that all parents vaccinate on their CDC mandated schedule, or keep your child out of school. This draconian stance comes amidst growing public support for medical freedom, revealing not just a disregard for constitutional rights, but a troubling allegiance to pharmaceutical interests. As pediatricians pressure parents under threat of CPS intervention and withheld medical care, Congress must act to criminalize abusive medical coercion and tyranny, ensuring that pediatricians follow medical ethics, instead of conscripting the state to intimidate and kidnap children over a parent’s personal vaccine decision.
Key points:
The AAP markets itself as “pro-child health,” but payment records expose a darker reality. Policy co-author Dr. Jesse Hackell—who wrote the anti-religious exemption statement—has taken money from Merck, Pfizer, and GSK. Co-author Dr. Lisa Kafer received similar payments, yet the AAP insists there are no relevant conflicts.
This hypocrisy mirrors historic lobbying efforts. Since 2019, the AAP has funneled over $1 million annually into pro-mandate advocacy. Their corporate sponsors? Moderna, Sanofi, Abbott Laboratories, and more. The conclusion is unavoidable: this is pharmaceutical policy disguised as pediatric guidance.
Pediatricians across the United States must consider that their pro-vaccine stance exists because of their own financial conflicts of interest in running their practice, and their stance on the issue is heavily influenced by dogma. Many pediatricians get bonuses from insurance companies for vaccinating a child or achieving a set number of vaccinated children. This is not medicine, and gives way to acts of coercion in pediatric care.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that parents retain a fundamental right to raise children according to their faith—a decision ignored by AAP elites. Civil rights attorney Sujata Gibson warns: “Forcing parents to choose between religion and education? Forty-five states already balance this without stripping freedoms.”
Yet AAP calls to revive 1905 case law, bypassing modern protections. Their dismissal of newer religious objections—like fetal-cell-derived vaccines—reflects not science, but contempt for conscience. Parents reserve the right to determine whether they want vaccines produced with aborted fetal cell lines to touch their child. But religious exemption isn’t limited to religious debates about abortion being used to make vaccines. Parents can consciously disagree with the theory of vaccination and have a completely different set of beliefs regarding disease prevention. Religious exemptions must be preserved for all vaccines, so parents can raise children unvaccinated, healthy, and free. Parents get to decide which risks to take, and vaccines don’t always prevent the disease they are marketed toward.
Congress should pass some form of Medical Freedom Protection Act. Under this law, pediatricians who threaten to use CPS against parents over vaccine decisions should be criminally charged. Likewise, pediatricians who revoke medical care or segregate unvaccinated children from others should face criminal charges. Key provisions must include:
As the AAP lobbies to annihilate exemptions, this bill reverses their authoritarian playbook—protecting families, not Pharma profits and those who get off on controlling and injuring others.
Sources include:
Publications.aap.org [PDF]
Tagged Under:
AAP, coercion, Constitutional rights, holistic medicine, medical freedom, natural immunity, Parental rights, Public Health, religious freedom, Supreme Court, Vaccine exemptions, vaccine mandates
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author