Editor’s note: Tia Severino is a mother of two adults with autism, an advocate, and content creator dedicated to promoting medical freedom and truth in health. She hosts the platform, Agents of Truth, sharing investigative insights and interviews with experts in health and policy. Passionate about community and education, she engages in projects highlighting transparency and accountability in public health.—eeb
By Tia Severino
TUCKER, Ga. | Many Georgians assume vaccine requirements for school attendance are set by the federal government.
They are not.
Under state law, the Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) holds statutory authority to establish and enforce immunization requirements for school entry. Those rules determine which vaccines are required, scheduling, documentation standards, and recognition of exemptions. The authority rests at the state level.
Historically, GDPH has aligned its guidance with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the federal public health agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC recommendations are developed through a formal advisory process and serve as the foundation for immunization policy in most states.
Recently, however, GDPH’s public-facing materials began referencing guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a private professional association that publishes its own immunization schedule and engages in legislative advocacy, including support for eliminating non-medical vaccine exemptions.
The distinction is not trivial. The CDC is a federal agency funded through congressional appropriations. The AAP is a private membership organization that participates in policy debates. When a state agency relies on one versus the other, it reflects a choice about the source of policy guidance.
The timing has heightened public interest. The AAP is currently named in a federal civil RICO lawsuit alleging misrepresentation of vaccine safety claims. Those allegations remain unresolved, and no findings of liability have been issued. Nonetheless, when an organization is engaged in active litigation and controversy, transparency regarding state reliance on its guidance becomes especially important.
To better understand why GDPH’s alignment had formally shifted, I submitted an Open Records Request seeking communications reflecting consideration of AAP guidance. The initial response stated that no responsive records existed. Shortly thereafter, two internal emails were produced. A subsequent targeted request identified more than 7,600 potentially responsive emails from one official over roughly a year. That volume does not establish misconduct, but it confirms internal discussion.
GDPH projected review and redaction costs exceeding $1,000. Georgia’s Open Records Act permits reasonable fees, but it also requires that the law be construed broadly in favor of disclosure.
Because GDPH’s rulemaking authority directly affects school attendance statewide, I have also shared my concerns and records findings with members of the Georgia General Assembly. Legislative oversight is a fundamental part of the balance between agency authority and elected representation. When administrative decisions carry statewide consequences, lawmakers should be aware of how policy alignment decisions are made and whether statutory authority is being exercised as intended.
This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of public process. When an agency exercises rulemaking authority affecting school attendance statewide, clarity about how alignment decisions are made is essential to maintaining public trust.
- Have a comment? Click here to send an email.
