Measles has exploded in Texas, but state could let more kids skip vaccines
Texas this year has been the center of the nation's largest measles outbreak in more than two decades, as a mostly eradicated disease has sickened more than 700 in the state, sent dozens to hospitals and led to the death of two children who were unvaccinated.
But even as the outbreak slows, a bill approved by state lawmakers and sent to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott would make it significantly easier for parents to enroll their children in school without standard vaccinations for diseases such as measles, whooping cough, polio and hepatitis A and B.
Supporters say the bill streamlines an already legal exemption process that allows families to avoid vaccines for reasons of conscience, religious beliefs or medical reasons. It would let them download the required forms from a website instead of contacting state health officials and waiting for one to come in the mail.
Story continues below advertisement
The bill does not change which vaccines are required. However, critics say easing the exemption process opens a door to further outbreaks with potentially deadly results.
'If this bill becomes law, Texas is likely to see more illness, more death and higher health care costs for families and business,' Rekha Lakshmanan, chief strategy officer for Texas-based nonprofit Immunization Project, told state senators before the bill won final approval.
'The outbreak (in Texas) is not a coincidence. It is the canary in the coal mine screaming at the top of its lungs,' she said.
The exemption bill — as well as other bills passed by the Texas House on lawsuits against vaccine makers and removing immunization restrictions on organ transplants — are a snapshot of efforts across dozens of conservative states to question vaccines or roll back requirements.
1:46
Measles cases continue to rise in Manitoba as outbreaks spread
At the national level, this wave has been buoyed by still-lingering pushback from the COVID-19 pandemic and the Trump administration's embrace of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was one of the nation's leading anti-vaccine advocates before being appointed secretary of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.
Story continues below advertisement
The most recent federal data shows U.S. kindergarten vaccination rates have dipped since the pandemic — 92.7 per cent in the 2023-24 school year compared to 95 per cent before COVID-19 — and the proportion of children with exemptions rose to an all-time high. And last week, the 'Make America Healthy Again' federal report on the nation's health and wellness questioned the necessity of vaccine mandates for schoolkids.
Get weekly health news
Receive the latest medical news and health information delivered to you every Sunday. Sign up for weekly health newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
The national Association of Immunization Managers, an organization of state and local immunization officials, has been tracking nearly 600 vaccine-related bills across the country in 2025, and the majority would not be considered pro-vaccine, said Brent Ewig, the group's the group's chief policy officer.
'We saw a spike in vaccine-related bills during the pandemic. The last few years it had been tapering off. With recent actions at the federal level, there has been a spike again,' Ewig said.
The Texas measles outbreak and vaccine requirements
Measles has been considered eliminated from the United States since 2000. The Texas outbreak started in late January in West Texas' Mennonite communities that have been resistant to vaccines and distrustful of government intervention, and the highly contagious virus quickly jumped to other places with low vaccination rates.
Like many states, Texas requires children to obtain vaccines to protect against 11 diseases to attend public and private schools and child care centers. The state's vaccination rates for the 2023-24 school year ranged between 93.78 per cent for chicken pox to 95.78 per cent for hepatitis B.
Story continues below advertisement
But parents can obtain exemptions for religious or personal reasons, or if a doctor determines it would not be safe because of a medical condition.
Exemption rates in Texas have been rising for nearly two decades, with a dramatic spike over the last five years. According to the Texas Department of Health Services, the agency received exemption requests for nearly 153,000 students in the 2023-2024 fiscal year, up from 136,000 the previous year and nearly double the 77,000 requested in 2019.
Texas' vaccine rollback
The bill on vaccine exemption paperwork would make it easier for parents to obtain the needed form by letting them download it to a computer or smartphone. The current system where parents ask state health officials to mail a paper copy to their home can sometimes take weeks. The form would still need to be notarized before it is turned in to a school and a student is enrolled.
Story continues below advertisement
Advocates say the changes would help parents thread the bureaucratic process and get their children enrolled in school quicker.
'This bill is not about whether vaccines are good or bad, it's about government efficiency and keeping kids in schools,' said Jackie Schlegal, founder of Texans for Medical Freedom, which advocates for 'vaccine freedom of choice.'
Critics argue that simplifying the exemption form process makes it too easy for unvaccinated kids to enroll in a school, endangering the health of other kids and families.
2:27
Health Matters: Ontario adds 173 new measles cases to growing outbreak
'For years Texas has struck a delicate balance of parents' right and public health and safety,' Lakshmanan said. 'This bill is more than just a form … We can support parents without putting other families at risk.'
Still waiting for a Senate vote is a bill that would allow vaccine makers who advertise in Texas to be sued if their vaccine causes a person to be injured. That bill has been opposed by the Texas Association of Manufacturers.
Story continues below advertisement
The author of that bill is first-term state Rep. Shelley Luther, who was briefly jailed in 2020 for opening her Dallas salon in violation of governor's emergency order during the pandemic. Abbott quickly weakened his enforcement of coronavirus safeguards and a court ordered her released.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
6 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Doctors notes and increased medical costs
Opinion You may recall some point in your past — for some, a more recent past than others — of having to produce a document to prove to a schoolteacher that you were, in fact, not feeling well and did, in fact, have to be excused for the day. Signed, Mom. That seemed normal enough at the time. The question is, why is it so commonplace for employees to still have to do it, well into adulthood? It's a question health-care practitioners in Canada have been asking more often. Doctors Manitoba on Tuesday called for the provincial government to eliminate employer requirements for sick notes to excuse a worker's short-term absence from the job. This call comes after a similar one by the Canadian Medical Association, which made the entreaty to governments in October last year. Matt Goerzen/The Brandon Sun Manitoba Health Minister and Deputy Premier Uzoma Asagwara The reasoning for the two groups' request is the same: getting rid of the need for workers to obtain a doctor's note acknowledging an illness and the need to be away from work is a drain on health-care resources. It takes up a physician's already precious time with paperwork which has nothing to do with caring for a patient, and everything to do with ticking off a box on somebody else's list. Doctors Manitoba estimates getting rid of these requirements will free up time for hundreds of thousands of other patient visits and save tax- payers about $8 million per year. Those are all great reasons to consider doing away with the requirement, but there are other, more simple ones. The doctors clearly don't want to deal with writing sick notes. It's also questionable how useful getting such a note is for an employer: even if an employee sees a physician, gets a note, and provides it, they have already missed at least some work by that point, and arrangements will already have been made to compensate for the absence. As for the workers, it seems infantilizing to make working adults have to prove the severity of their own illness. Yes, it's possible someone isn't as sick as they claim and simply wants to take the day. But the worker — under the terms of workplace legislation, specific workplace standards or the terms of a bargaining agreement — is already generally afforded a set number of sick days per year. It should not be the employer's right to force a worker to justify the use of them. Weekday Evenings Today's must-read stories and a roundup of the day's headlines, delivered every evening. We have also learned a few things in recent years, and decades, which should change how we approach illness in the workplace. The COVID-19 pandemic was a wake-up call in terms of how we treat illness in public. Specifically we learned it's better to be safe than sorry — if you wake up with a scratchy throat and a cough, just stay home and make sure you're well before returning to work. No more powering through because you're 'not that bad.' And beyond dealing with the infectious, is dealing with the invisible. A worker struggling with their mental health should be able to take some time off to look after themselves without having to produce a note proving they are in the throes of depression or some other ailment. At the same time, managers still have to be able to manage their businesses and set policies for sick leave. The Manitoba NDP had put forward a private member's bill to eliminate sick note requirements for short-term illnesses in 2016, only for it to be struck down by the then-ruling PC government. Health Minister Uzoma Asagwara has said the province is still interested in such legislation. Let's hope we can all do away with an irritation, but still find a solution that works for employers and employees.
Winnipeg Free Press
9 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Crash dummies used in car safety tests are still modeled after men despite higher risks for women
Maria Weston Kuhn had one lingering question about the car crash that forced her to have emergency surgery during a vacation in Ireland: Why did she and her mother sustain serious injuries while her father and brother, who sat in the front, emerge unscathed? 'It was a head-on crash and they were closest to the point of contact,' said Kuhn, now 25, who missed a semester of college to recover from the 2019 collision that caused her seat belt to slide off her hips and rupture her intestines by pinning them against her spine. 'That was an early clue that something else was going on.' When Kuhn returned home to Maine, she found an article her grandma had clipped from Consumer Reports and left on her bed. Women are 73% more likely to be injured in a frontal crash, she learned, yet the dummy used in vehicle tests by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration dates back to the 1970s and is still modeled almost entirely off the body of a man. A survivor becomes an activist Kuhn, who is starting law school at New York University this fall, took action and founded the nonprofit Drive US Forward. Its aim was to raise public awareness and eventually encourage members of Congress to sign onto a bill that would require NHTSA to incorporate a more advanced female dummy into its testing. The agency has the final word on whether cars get pulled from the market, and the kind of dummy used in its safety tests could impact which ones receive coveted five-star ratings. 'It seems like we have an easy solution here where we can have crash test dummies that reflect an average woman as well as a man,' Sen. Deb Fischer, a Nebraska Republican who has introduced the legislation the past two sessions, told The Associated Press. Senators from both parties have signed onto Fischer's 'She Drives Act,' and the transportation secretaries from the past two presidential administrations have expressed support for updating the rules. But for various reasons, the push for new safety requirements has been moving at a sluggish pace. That's particularly true in the U.S., where much of the research is happening and where around 40,000 people are killed each year in car crashes. Evolution of a crash test dummy The crash test dummy currently used in NHTSA five-star testing is called the Hybrid III, which was developed in 1978 and modeled after a 5-foot-9, 171-pound man (the average size in the 1970s but about 29 pounds lighter than today's average). What's known as the female dummy is essentially a much smaller version of the male model with a rubber jacket to represent breasts. It's routinely tested in the passenger seat or the back seat but seldom in the driver's seat, even though the majority of licensed drivers are women. 'What they didn't do is design a crash test dummy that has all the sensors in the areas where a woman would be injured differently than a man,' said Christopher O'Connor, president and CEO of the Farmington Hills, Michigan-based Humanetics Group, which has spent more than a decade developing and refining one. A female dummy from Humanetics equipped with all of the available sensors costs around $1 million, about twice the cost of the Hybrid used now. But, O'Connor says, the more expensive dummy far more accurately reflects the anatomical differences between the sexes — including in the shape of the neck, collarbone, pelvis, and legs, which one NHTSA study found account for about 80% more injuries by women in a car crash compared to men. Such physical dummies will always be needed for vehicle safety tests, and to verify the accuracy of virtual tests, O'Connor said. Europe incorporated the more advanced male dummy developed by Humanetics' engineers, the THOR 50M (based on a 50th percentile man), into its testing procedures soon after Kuhn's 2019 crash in Ireland. Several other countries, including China and Japan, have adopted it as well. But that model and the female version the company uses for comparison, the THOR 5F (based on a 5th percentile woman), have been met with skepticism from some American automakers who argue the more sophisticated devices may exaggerate injury risks and undercut the value of some safety features such as seat belts and airbags. A debate over whether more sensors mean more safety Bridget Walchesky, 19, had to be flown to a hospital, where she required eight surgeries over a month, after a 2022 crash near her home in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, that killed her friend, who was driving. While acknowledging the seat belt likely saved her life, Walchesky said some of the injuries — including her broken collarbone — were the result of it pinning her too tightly, which she views as something better safety testing focused on women could improve. 'Seat belts aren't really built for bodies on females,' Walchesky said. 'Some of my injuries, the way the force hit me, they were probably worsened.' The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an industry trade group, said in a statement to the AP that the better way to ensure safety — which it called its top priority — is through upgrades to the existing Hybrid dummy rather than mandating a new one. 'This can happen on a faster timeline and lead to quicker safety improvements than requiring NHTSA to adopt unproven crash test dummy technology,' the alliance said. Humanetics' THOR dummies received high marks in the vehicle safety agency's early tests. Using cadavers from actual crashes to compare the results, NHTSA found they outperformed the existing Hybrid in predicting almost all injuries — including to the head, neck, shoulders, abdomen and legs. A separate review by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research arm funded by auto insurers, was far more critical of the dummy's ability to predict chest injuries in a frontal crash. Despite the vast expansion in the number of sensors, the insurance institute's testing found, the male THOR dummy was less accurate than the current Hybrid dummies, which also had limitations. 'More isn't necessarily better,' said Jessica Jermakian, senior vice president for vehicle research at IIHS. 'You also have to be confident that the data is telling you the right things about how a real person would fare in that crash.' Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. The slow pace of changing the rules NHTSA's budget plan commits to developing the female THOR 5F version with the ultimate goal of incorporating it into the testing. But there could be a long wait considering the THOR's male version adopted by other countries is still awaiting final approval in the U.S. A 2023 report by the Government Accountability Office, which conducts research for Congress, cited numerous 'missed milestones' in NHTSA's development of various crash dummy enhancements — including in the THOR models. Kuhn acknowledges being frustrated by the slow process of trying to change the regulations. She says she understands why there's reluctance from auto companies if they fear being forced to make widespread design changes with more consideration for women's safety. 'Fortunately, they have very skilled engineers and they'll figure it out,' she said.
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018. She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015.
