Vaccination bill passes California Senate Health Committee

Page 1 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Apr 2015, 1:17 pm

It appears that California is finally getting rid of its personal belief exemptions for vaccination, which are believed to have contributed to that measles outbreak at Disneyland a couple years back:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /25512775/

I'm in agreement with the vaccination side: You don't get to take actions that put others at risk. The anti-vaxxers are driven by a distorted risk analysis that borders on paranoia. Of course, medical exemptions should still be permitted, and protecting people with medical exemptions is one of the reasons why we aim to maximize vaccination: It reduces many possible disease vectors.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

09 Apr 2015, 4:18 pm

#MyBodyMyChoice.

U.S. Supreme Court said so.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


VincentHuxley
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2015
Posts: 15
Location: Midwest USA

09 Apr 2015, 4:28 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
#MyBodyMyChoice.

U.S. Supreme Court said so.


What ruling are you referring to?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Apr 2015, 4:35 pm

The government has no right to mandate what I do and don't put into my body, I don't trust them or their drugs. Get what you personally find beneficial, encourage everyone to do the same, don't coerce people. That's a dangerous dangerous slippery slope when the government has to power to take ownership over ourselves and kids.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Apr 2015, 4:46 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The government has no right to mandate what I do and don't put into my body, I don't trust them or their drugs. Get what you personally find beneficial, encourage everyone to do the same, don't coerce people. That's a dangerous dangerous slippery slope when the government has to power to take ownership over ourselves and kids.


It's not a slippery slope, which is fallacious anyway. Do you know how long vaccines and mandates for vaccination have been around?

My state is pretty red, but does not have the same ridiculous personal belief exemption California has.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,790
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?

09 Apr 2015, 4:47 pm

The other day I watched a brilliant parody of The Magic School Bus, where the teacher has a group of adults who refuse to believe that a measles vaccine is protecting a child's body and not harming it, even when it's happening in front of their eyes. The parents then destroy the vaccine with the bus in an attempt to "save" the body, and the kid develops a high fever that melts the bus with them in it.

Naturally, kids would love to not have to get shots because they fear needles more than the illness they prevent and they're too young and dumb to understand why they need them. Sadly, looks like parents are just as dumb, too.

I once read about a boy who didn't receive a tetanus shot because his parents refused it, and then their son developed tetanus and suffered so much pain they had to medically induce him into a coma. You see? The kids always end up paying for the stupids decisions their parents make!



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Apr 2015, 4:55 pm

And I'd like to reassert, you don't get to do things that put others at risk for serious harm.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Apr 2015, 4:57 pm

VincentHuxley wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
#MyBodyMyChoice.

U.S. Supreme Court said so.


What ruling are you referring to?


I'm guessing Roe v. Wade, not understanding that abortions and refusing vaccinations have completely different impacts on the safety of others.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Apr 2015, 5:07 pm

Pretending that vaccines pose no risk at all is what is fallacious, why would anyone trust the CDC or FDA or whatever government agency to have their best interests at heart? Regulatory capture is present in pretty much all levels of government, the best wishes of the individual can't be expected to compete with the monied interests in the country. When you give power it will inevitably be abused.

I think those numbers are skewed as well in that article, 3% of California children aren't vaccinated? Not vaccinated for what? Correct me if I am wrong but I'm guessing that means not in total compliance rather than like measles. You do know that they ask you vaccinate children for things like Hep B or HPV which unless your kid shares needs or have cause unprotected sex with strangers you should be alright.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Apr 2015, 5:25 pm

Jacoby,

Who says there is zero risk that comes with vaccines? I understand the risk to be very slim, even slimmer than the risks that come with the diseases they prevent, but I know it's not zero.

I'm wondering where you got that from, because it looks like you're knocking down a strawman.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Apr 2015, 5:46 pm

Also, rates of vaccination are not distributed equally. They cluster in certain areas, and when you read through the recent stories on vaccination non-vaccinated children have a tendency to cluster in certain schools.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Apr 2015, 5:48 pm

A map in this article shows the clustering that occurs in California:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ert_f.html


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

09 Apr 2015, 5:54 pm

beneficii wrote:
I'm guessing Roe v. Wade, not understanding that abortions and refusing vaccinations have completely different impacts on the safety of others.

Yes, Roe would apply, but I was referring also to Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and to Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), in which matters the U.S. Supreme Court determined that "...the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion[,]" and that "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

It would seem then, that the personal decision of an individual to choose to prevent the conception of a child, or to abort a child through medical or pharmaceutical means now has the full weight and authority of the Constitution for the United States of America behind them. But, somehow, the notion that the same individual is constitutionally protected in a personal decision to decline a vaccination that might prevent a disease like the measles is now anathema to the very same right to personal privacy, seems absurd to me. In other words, if privacy allows a woman to terminate her pregnancy or a couple to avoid pregnancy in the first place (with the inherent deaths involved), why shouldn't that privacy protect the woman or couple in avoiding vaccinations if they choose to do so?

For that matter, would a state or federal law which prohibited gender-reassignment surgery be allowable in today's sense of what is private from the government? Should mandatory ex-gay conversion therapies be banned (as the White House is trying to do) or applied to every state? What exactly is the limit of federal authority? How would those Americans with Guillain–Barré syndrome or an immune disorder fair if vaccinations were mandatory? My brother with GBS would almost certainly die by the time he returned home. My friends with HIV/AIDS might do no better. What about people like myself who have had allergic reactions to certain drugs and vaccines?

So, a woman or couple can demand drugs to prevent pregnancy (or, in the case of RU486, demand a drug to terminate the woman's pregnancy), but an individual for whom certain drugs and vaccinations have a deleterious effect (whether they know it yet or not) should be forced to comply with mandatory vaccinations against their will?

Welcome to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

If so, the government still hasn't answered the bizarre "herd vaccination" question about how a willingly unvaccinated individual could possibly infect a willingly vaccinated individual. If the vaccinated individual is claimed to be immune from infection from an unvaccinated individual, why is anyone worried except, possibly, those who are unvaccinated (and probably choose to remain so)? Any takers?


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Last edited by AspieUtah on 09 Apr 2015, 6:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Apr 2015, 6:12 pm

The reason, AspieUtah, should be fairly obvious: Not vaccinating is a risk to public health, as it places children who have not received vaccinations yet in danger, as well as those who could not vaccinate for medical reasons and those with compromised immune systems. Abortions and sex reassignment therapies are NOT risks to public health.

I have never seen the Supreme Court say that requiring vaccination is unconstitutional and the reason is obvious: The government has a legitimate interest in preserving the public health.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

09 Apr 2015, 6:15 pm

beneficii wrote:
The reason, AspieUtah, should be fairly obvious: Not vaccinating is a risk to public health, as it places children who have not received vaccinations yet in danger, as well as those who could not vaccinate for medical reasons and those with compromised immune systems. Abortions and sex reassignment therapies are NOT risks to public health.

I have never seen the Supreme Court say that requiring vaccination is unconstitutional and the reason is obvious: The government has a legitimate interest in preserving the public health.

Against which there are Court opinions which have upheld the right to choose under the privacy protections of the Constitution for the United States of America. So, it would appear that the matter is up to each individual, not a federal mandate.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Apr 2015, 6:25 pm

If anything, abortion and sex reassignment therapy are the opposite. Abortion helps prevent babies from being born to parents who are not equipped to raise them and sex reassignment therapy is recognized as the best treatment in certain cases of severe gender dysphoria.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin