American Academy of Pediatrics Calls for End of All Religious Exemptions

The ability to practice one’s sincere religious beliefs is woven into the very fabric of America and its founding ethos, yet the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a membership organization focusing on pediatricians, just declared war on this bedrock right.

Besides being morally objectionable, the concept is just plain unpopular in modern America. By 2023, only six U.S. states officially denied parents religious exemptions to vaccination for their children via laws that were enacted in the face of massive opposition from the public.

Since then, two of the states (Mississippi and West Virginia) have seen their religious denial laws overturned by court wins from the Informed Consent Action Network’s legal team, in which judges deemed such laws to violate the First Amendment.

Meanwhile, public pushback saw Hawaii as the latest state to defeat a bill that would have removed its religious exemption option.

AAP’s new policy paper has stepped in with an attempt to stop the momentum of religious freedom in the medical and public health space – an idea whose time has come.

“The AAP recommends that all states, territories, and the District of Columbia eliminate all nonmedical exemptions from immunizations as a condition of school attendance.”

With a flowery mission to ‘attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults,’ AAP fashions itself more as a continuous pipeline for industry products through overreaching, anti-science edicts.

The AAP recently floated a lawsuit against HHS Secretary Kennedy for his recommendation to remove pregnant women and healthy children from the COVID-19 vaccine schedule.

Let’s take a look at some of AAP’s greatest hits over the last 5 years.

In 2019, Washington D.C.’s B23-0171 (later named D.C. Law 23-193) sought to add a new section into the existing regulations that would allow a minor child to consent to receive a vaccine. The bill, and its hearing, signaled a new high-water mark towards the removal of parents from some of their children’s most important medical decisions – and AAP was there.

During the public hearing before it was signed into law, pediatrician Dr. Helene Felman, representing Washington, D.C.’s chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), stated:

“As a pediatrician, I like the legislation as it stands because it offers the opportunity to capture those young adults who can make informed decisions at technically any age.”

Any age…..

An ICAN legal victory halting D.C.’s overreach saw a D.C. district judge issue a preliminary injunction against the act in favor of parents who brought suit. The parents filed complaints and were able to demonstrate that the act likely violates federal law.

Next up, AAP was on the wrong side of the push, against clear scientific evidence, to medically transition children. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the U.K., and other countries officially backed off the practice. A 2025 review by HHS of the evidence and best practices found significant risks associated with gender dysphoria treatments.

One of the authors of the paper stated simply:

“…No reliable research indicates that these treatments are beneficial to minors’ mental health.”

In 2023, AAP reaffirmed its stance in a policy paper arguing for youth to have open access to gender-affirming health care fully funded by health insurance.

And finally, the AAP worked to influence public policy by advocating for new injectable weight loss drugs for children.

“Children struggling with obesity should be evaluated and treated early and aggressively, including with medications for kids as young as 12 and surgery for those as young as 13, according to new guidelines released Monday.”

The newly discovered harms of such drugs are unfolding on a weekly basis but that didn’t seem to matter to the AAP.

As an industry mouthpiece that sees children as a profit margin and pipeline demographic for drugs and shots, AAP is unmatched in its corporate ‘advocacy.’

The organization appears to have chosen another losing battle, siding against religious freedom in the United States of America, and with it a further loss of relevancy for the organization.