ShareThis Page
Mother defies court order to vaccinate her son |

Mother defies court order to vaccinate her son

Ben Schmitt
| Monday, October 2, 2017 12:03 p.m
Rebecca Bredow, of Michigan, faces possible jail time for refusing to obey a court order to have her 9-year-old son vaccinated.
A a pediatrician holds a dose of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine at his practice in Northridge, Calif.

A Michigan woman says she might go to jail before adhering to a court order to vaccinate her son.

“I would rather sit behind bars for standing up for what I believe in, than giving into something I strongly don’t believe in,” Rebecca Bredow told television station WXYZ . “God forbid he were to be injured by one of the vaccines, then what, that’s what scares me.”

Bredow, who lives in a Detroit suburb, is involved in a custody battle with her ex-husband over their 9-year-old son.

In November, an Oakland County, Michigan, court sided with Bredow’s ex-husband, James Horne, and ordered Bredow to get their son vaccinated. She said Horne wants their son to receive all of his vaccinations but she is opposed.

She has not gotten the boy vaccinated so far.

Bredow said the county judge had given her until Wednesday to get her son the medically allowed amount of vaccination, which would be up to eight vaccines.

The state of Michigan allows parents to opt out of certain vaccines for non-medical reasons. It’s unclear whether Bredow sought such a waiver.

“I can’t give in against my own religious belief,” Bredow told The Washington Post on Saturday . “This is about choice. This is about having my choices as a mother to be able to make medical choices for my child.”

Ben Schmitt is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7991, or via Twitter at @Bencschmitt.

Ben Schmitt is a Tribune-Review assistant news editor. You can contact Ben at 412-320-7991, or via Twitter .

Categories: Health Now
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.