Vaccination bill passes California Senate Health Committee
09 Apr 2015, 6:26 pm
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.
Oh? Can you point some cases out?
_________________
"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
09 Apr 2015, 6:28 pm
Good!
When I started at each elementary school I went to, I had to show proof of residency and vaccination in order to attend public school.
I had to show my residency and vaccination records when I went to both junior high schools (one was 7th, the other was 8th grade) to make sure my records were up to date. You weren't able to attend school until you did.
I had then had do it yet again for high school, which was in the same damn school district as the final elementary and the two junior high schools.
If you weren't up to date with your records, you couldn't attend high school either...
There was a medical exemption under the law at the time.
Oh I also had to show proof of insurance and to list any vaccines I didn't have in my records in order to register at Community College in Oakland County Michigan!
_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...
09 Apr 2015, 6:38 pm
I did see a case where some quarantines may be faulty, namely the cases last year regarding ebola. For example, it seems there were legitimate scientific and public health questions to some of the quarantines, in that the quarantines weren't really supported by the science, so they were illegitimate:
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article ... /310279939
However, what they are argue seems to support quarantines where there is legitimate scientific evidence for them.
Considering that there is a scientific consensus on vaccination and that the literature generally supports vaccination as a public health measure I think it is legitimate for state governments to mandate it.
Of course, some opponents like to make it out that supporters of vaccination who are knowledgeable are trying to lie about the risks, making statements like this one, which I'm guessing is the source of the strawman argument that Jacoby put forth earlier in the thread:
http://naturalsociety.com/u-s-supreme-c ... cinations/
Of course, they misrepesent even that. First by the use of the word "even" referring to the CDC's reports, even though I think the CDC has made these reports for decades. Second, by not specifying the actual risk of these events, they seem to like to leave it to their paranoid readers' imaginations.
_________________
"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
09 Apr 2015, 6:49 pm
If the vaccinated individual develops a compromised immune system, then they would become vulnerable again to those diseases, so an individual who is not vaccinated and has never had the illness could be a possible disease vector for them. Also, some individuals cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons; those people would be at risk from the willfully unvaccinated people who could become 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
09 Apr 2015, 7:18 pm
Government has the right to pass laws declaring children must be vaccinated just like there are a host of laws passed concerning children & their safety since they have very little, if any, rights of their own. They have no right to declare they should be vaccinated it's the parents that decide and if the parents are going to show they are not working in the best interest of their child a bill should be passed by the government that they have the right to seize the child and vaccinate him or her, then return child to parents after the vaccination and this should be done as quickly and quietly as possible, and non intrusive, so that life is not disrupted for very long. One little vaccination in the quick, brief, blink of an eye. After a few more times, it's done and that's all. Stop obsessing on it. Your child will not be contaminated for life because he got a few vaccines before the age of five.
This idea that children have individual liberty in our country is absolutely the farthest from reality since they do not and since we use this excuse they don't for their own protection, then if not vaccinating causes them to be placed in harms way without any reason whatsoever, then we need to see to it a law is passed to protect them since children are a protected class.
This platitude about individual liberty clearly does not pertain to kids or they would be free of their parents, free of school, free to do whatever they want at all times, no curfews, no responsibilities, yes they can talk back to authority figures, it's a matter of individual liberty but anyone with eyes and ears knows this is absolutely NOT reality.
Individual liberty means you can do whatever you want. THAT is what it means. Now who gets to do whatever they want all the time??? No one! It's time to face reality. Just vaccinate your kid already.
If parents truly believe their child should have individual liberty, let the children go do whatever they want because that's what individual liberty is. Most parents won't do that and that's where this lofty idealism stops.
09 Apr 2015, 9:11 pm
You appear to be missing the forest for the trees. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a medical right to privacy exists without much limitation. I choose to view that right in ways which harmonize with the cases' various plaintiffs and their cohorts because no other opinions appear to deny such a right to them. The right to enjoy medical treatment includes a right to be free from it, too. Or am I wrong? Please cite which cases have shown that, apart from declared health emergencies, an individual's medical right to privacy may be infringed.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeated its opinion about the right to medical privacy in the cases that I cited and probably several more.
Not to pick nits, but the U.S. government has no rights, only constitutionally delegated authorities and powers. States and their residents, on the other hand, have the rights you describe. However, even in those jurisdictions, certain constitutional rights cannot be infringed without extraordinary measures like declared marshal law, declared state or national disasters and declared health emergencies.
_________________
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)
09 Apr 2015, 9:23 pm
AspieUtah,
I think the consensus view in both the fields of law and public health, as shown in that ebola quarantine article, is that if there is a compelling scientific and public health reason to do so, then government officials may take steps to limit threats to public health and safety even if that limits the rights of individual persons. The idea is that, just like your fist must stop short of me, so too must the impacts of your activities fall short of harming others or putting them at risk. If you have a very dangerous and highly contagious illness, you might be quarantined, and there is no reason to ever expect the Supreme Court to overturn that, where it is supported by science and public health principles, as explained in my first sentence: because if they let you loose, then you're going to spread it, hurting more people. Likewise, if you're trying to go into a crowded place with lots of people, like a school, they would want to make sure you're vaccinated so you are not another possible disease vector or to account for that lack of vaccination because medically you cannot get vaccinated.
_________________
"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
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, 9:35 pm
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.
Isn't that the narrative, that anybody that who questions the safety of these vaccines is cuckoo?
Also the immunocompromised die from like diseases from their cats, seasonal flu is much much more of a risk to them than anything we vaccinate for. There really isn't much you can do about that either, it sucks for them but you can't germ proof the world.
Also, how is killing an unborn life not a public health problem? There are over a million abortions every year in the US, you can probably count on one hand how many have died from measles over the last 10, so the math to me doesn't add up to me. I imagine more people have died or had serious lifelong effects from measles vaccines in the US than measles itself over the last couple decades and that's the sickness that we're all suppose to be afraid of? Why are Hep B and HPV vaccines mandated? Its more than just measles that they vaccinate against and that is a deadly disease like a bad flu is, how many people died from this "devastating" outbreak from Disneyworld? They scared people so much about it but what was the real damage when it was all said and done?
Either the government has the right to interfere in your personal health decisions or it doesn't so which is it? Where is the line drawn? Should the government mandate circumcision since apparently the belief by the medical establishment in the US is that it reduces the chances of becoming infected with HIV? How many people support that?
My parents didn't think it was necessary to protect me as a child from STDs, really wasn't a priority and I'm a-okay!
09 Apr 2015, 9:37 pm
AspieUtah,
The constitution is seriously out-of-date. When it was written, children were considered the PROPERTY of their parents and this is why there is barely a nod in their direction in that document when clearly there needs to be some kind of explanation concerning their welfare, what kind of rights they do have because if we are going to be idealistic about individual liberties, why on earth would we deny children their individual liberties as well? The issue isn't addressed in the constitution. We have no guidelines. We do know children are 100% persons even though the constitution does not tell us.
It is a vague document written by White Anglo Saxon Protestant men who felt persecuted by a king. It's a reactionary's document. That isn't saying that the ideals are lofty but how pragmatic are these ideals in today's world? How can you tell me that each of us can have individual liberty and at the same time demand we all do all these things as citizens? You cannot have it both ways. The number one problem with the constitution: IT IS SIMPLY TOO VAGUE. That's why we have so many constitutional issues going on. What we need are clear guidelines that are to be followed, not vague platitudes intended for a minority, bourgeoisie, ruling class. I am not dissing certain liberties but we need something more to go on than a vague term like, "individual liberties" which is just nonsense because we all know that is something that never happens in our society. You must answer to others for your actions and that, my friend, is not liberty. Of course, it was liberty to the plantation owner because he never had to answer to anyone but the banker. He could be as abusive as he wanted to women, slaves, children, and yes, at the time, he was free to do that and he wanted to protect that freedom and that was what the constitution was intended to do and it did for quite a while but we don't have slaves any more, women are seen as equals and children have more rights than they did back then so these vague terms are virtually useless to how we live today.
In order to help us all, government has the right to seize the child, vaccinate them, then promptly return them to their mom or dad in a way that is as non disruptive as possible but will still get the job done. I mean, if laws can be passed making me wear a seat belt or laws requiring parents put their children in car seats, none of which are addressed anywhere in the constitution yet no one belly aches about that, then pass laws that mandate vaccinations.
09 Apr 2015, 9:39 pm
I think the consensus view in both the fields of law and public health, as shown in that ebola quarantine article, is that if there is a compelling scientific and public health reason to do so, then government officials may take steps to limit threats to public health and safety even if that limits the rights of individual persons. The idea is that, just like your fist must stop short of me, so too must the impacts of your activities fall short of harming others or putting them at risk. If you have a very dangerous and highly contagious illness, you might be quarantined, and there is no reason to ever expect the Supreme Court to overturn that, where it is supported by science and public health principles, as explained in my first sentence: because if they let you loose, then you're going to spread it, hurting more people. Likewise, if you're trying to go into a crowded place with lots of people, like a school, they would want to make sure you're vaccinated so you are not another possible disease vector or to account for that lack of vaccination because medically you cannot get vaccinated.
Without declared marshal law, disaster or health emergency, there are currently no laws and no court opinions which authorize what you are supporting. I don't believe that such laws and opinions are forthcoming. I don't foresee any such marshal law(s), disasters or health emergencies, either. So, the question is: Why all the clamor for even more governmental authority in addition to those authorities which it already has at its disposal? Even with such marshal law(s), disasters or health emergencies, or even laws and court opinions, many states already enjoy certain protections against abuse of constitutional rights during those circumstances. My own state laws allow for personal choice when it comes to medical privacy with regard to vaccinations. Short of a declaration of marshal law, nothing will stop those laws from being enforced (and I suspect that the government would even watch its steps during marshal law).
There is also the idea of acts of law versus constitutional rights. When push comes to shove, acts of law usually yield to rights. While rights can be restricted, its is a Herculean feat to achieve. Most importantly, We the People, ourselves, might have something to say and do about any attempt by a government to force people to comply with something that would violate their constitutional rights, their religious faith, their health and that of their families.
_________________
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)
09 Apr 2015, 9:42 pm
The constitution is seriously out-of-date. When it was written, children were considered the PROPERTY of their parents and this is why there is barely a nod in their direction in that document when clearly there needs to be some kind of explanation concerning their welfare, what kind of rights they do have because if we are going to be idealistic about individual liberties, why on earth would we deny children their individual liberties as well? The issue isn't addressed in the constitution. We have no guidelines. We do know children are 100% persons even though the constitution does not tell us.
It is a vague document written by White Anglo Saxon Protestant men who felt persecuted by a king. It's a reactionary's document. That isn't saying that the ideals are lofty but how pragmatic are these ideals in today's world? How can you tell me that each of us can have individual liberty and at the same time demand we all do all these things as citizens? You cannot have it both ways. The number one problem with the constitution: IT IS SIMPLY TOO VAGUE. That's why we have so many constitutional issues going on. What we need are clear guidelines that are to be followed, not vague platitudes intended for a minority, bourgeoisie, ruling class. I am not dissing certain liberties but we need something more to go on than a vague term like, "individual liberties" which is just nonsense because we all know that is something that never happens in our society. You must answer to others for your actions and that, my friend, is not liberty. Of course, it was liberty to the plantation owner because he never had to answer to anyone but the banker. He could be as abusive as he wanted to women, slaves, children, and yes, at the time, he was free to do that and he wanted to protect that freedom and that was what the constitution was intended to do and it did for quite a while but we don't have slaves any more, women are seen as equals and children have more rights than they did back then so these vague terms are virtually useless to how we live today.
In order to help us all, government has the right to seize the child, vaccinate them, then promptly return them to their mom or dad in a way that is as non disruptive as possible but will still get the job done. I mean, if laws can be passed making me wear a seat belt or laws requiring parents put their children in car seats, none of which are addressed anywhere in the constitution yet no one belly aches about that, then pass laws that mandate vaccinations.
I disagree completely, but I will stipulate that your opinion might be true. It is, however, all we have got to work with. Unless and until the Constitution for the United States of America is amended, it remains the supreme law of our nation. As such, it is ultimately what will need to be changed (according to its own rules) before anyone is no longer subject to its provisions.
_________________
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)
09 Apr 2015, 9:47 pm
The constitution is seriously out-of-date. When it was written, children were considered the PROPERTY of their parents and this is why there is barely a nod in their direction in that document when clearly there needs to be some kind of explanation concerning their welfare, what kind of rights they do have because if we are going to be idealistic about individual liberties, why on earth would we deny children their individual liberties as well? The issue isn't addressed in the constitution. We have no guidelines. We do know children are 100% persons even though the constitution does not tell us.
It is a vague document written by White Anglo Saxon Protestant men who felt persecuted by a king. It's a reactionary's document. That isn't saying that the ideals are lofty but how pragmatic are these ideals in today's world? How can you tell me that each of us can have individual liberty and at the same time demand we all do all these things as citizens? You cannot have it both ways. The number one problem with the constitution: IT IS SIMPLY TOO VAGUE. That's why we have so many constitutional issues going on. What we need are clear guidelines that are to be followed, not vague platitudes intended for a minority, bourgeoisie, ruling class. I am not dissing certain liberties but we need something more to go on than a vague term like, "individual liberties" which is just nonsense because we all know that is something that never happens in our society. You must answer to others for your actions and that, my friend, is not liberty. Of course, it was liberty to the plantation owner because he never had to answer to anyone but the banker. He could be as abusive as he wanted to women, slaves, children, and yes, at the time, he was free to do that and he wanted to protect that freedom and that was what the constitution was intended to do and it did for quite a while but we don't have slaves any more, women are seen as equals and children have more rights than they did back then so these vague terms are virtually useless to how we live today.
In order to help us all, government has the right to seize the child, vaccinate them, then promptly return them to their mom or dad in a way that is as non disruptive as possible but will still get the job done. I mean, if laws can be passed making me wear a seat belt or laws requiring parents put their children in car seats, none of which are addressed anywhere in the constitution yet no one belly aches about that, then pass laws that mandate vaccinations.
I disagree completely, but I will stipulate that your opinion might be true. It is, however, all we have got to work with. Unless and until the Constitution for the United States of America is amended, it remains the supreme law of our nation. As such, it is ultimately what will need to be changed (according to its own rules) before anyone is no longer subject to its provisions.
Okay then why must I wear a seatbelt, AspieUtah?
Jacoby
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, 9:57 pm
The constitution is seriously out-of-date. When it was written, children were considered the PROPERTY of their parents and this is why there is barely a nod in their direction in that document when clearly there needs to be some kind of explanation concerning their welfare, what kind of rights they do have because if we are going to be idealistic about individual liberties, why on earth would we deny children their individual liberties as well? The issue isn't addressed in the constitution. We have no guidelines. We do know children are 100% persons even though the constitution does not tell us.
It is a vague document written by White Anglo Saxon Protestant men who felt persecuted by a king. It's a reactionary's document. That isn't saying that the ideals are lofty but how pragmatic are these ideals in today's world? How can you tell me that each of us can have individual liberty and at the same time demand we all do all these things as citizens? You cannot have it both ways. The number one problem with the constitution: IT IS SIMPLY TOO VAGUE. That's why we have so many constitutional issues going on. What we need are clear guidelines that are to be followed, not vague platitudes intended for a minority, bourgeoisie, ruling class. I am not dissing certain liberties but we need something more to go on than a vague term like, "individual liberties" which is just nonsense because we all know that is something that never happens in our society. You must answer to others for your actions and that, my friend, is not liberty. Of course, it was liberty to the plantation owner because he never had to answer to anyone but the banker. He could be as abusive as he wanted to women, slaves, children, and yes, at the time, he was free to do that and he wanted to protect that freedom and that was what the constitution was intended to do and it did for quite a while but we don't have slaves any more, women are seen as equals and children have more rights than they did back then so these vague terms are virtually useless to how we live today.
In order to help us all, government has the right to seize the child, vaccinate them, then promptly return them to their mom or dad in a way that is as non disruptive as possible but will still get the job done. I mean, if laws can be passed making me wear a seat belt or laws requiring parents put their children in car seats, none of which are addressed anywhere in the constitution yet no one belly aches about that, then pass laws that mandate vaccinations.
I disagree completely, but I will stipulate that your opinion might be true. It is, however, all we have got to work with. Unless and until the Constitution for the United States of America is amended, it remains the supreme law of our nation. As such, it is ultimately what will need to be changed (according to its own rules) before anyone is no longer subject to its provisions.
Okay then why must I wear a seatbelt, AspieUtah?
because cops need a reason to pull you over and fine you to get money to fund their new tanks
you don't think it is really for public safety do you?
09 Apr 2015, 9:59 pm
Again, Jacoby, it depends on the science. I don't think there is a scientific consensus on circumcision like there is for vaccination. I personally find it somewhat strange that a largely Christian country like the USA engages so widely in the practice. In regards to vaccination of the 2 diseases that you brought up, I do know this: There is a lot of data that supports the CDC's vaccination schedule. What you saw as a pathetic outbreak was just a taste of what is possible if vaccination rates continue to decline, which would massively increase the disease vectors and reduce greatly the herd immunity--a somewhat unfortunate term, I know.
Also, I am not going to entertain any more discussions on abortion here, which is irrelevant to a discussion on public health and safety. You guys like bringing up that subject way too much. I know that if I entertained it any more, this discussion will be about nothing but abortion.
And I must say, I see many parents becoming increasingly bad risk assessors. Why, I remember getting into an argument with one dad who believed he should never ever let his children play outside without supervision, even if they're in high school. Basically, he argues, in a somewhat muddled way--it took a bit to get a clear argument out of him,--that stranger kidnappings have increased massively, even though the data doesn't support that statement at all. What's increased is mainly kidnappings by a noncustodial parent pissed that they lost the child. He was willing to deal with the detrimental effects of having a kid in front of nothing but screens in all waking hours in order to prevent the very remote chance that somebody could snatch his kid.
I must say, Thank God my parents were never that stupid. They support mandatory vaccinations and they support letting kids play outside together. They think it's stupid that there is now a long line of cars at schools in the morning and afternoon because parents are so paranoid they wouldn't let their kid walk to school.
_________________
"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
09 Apr 2015, 10:02 pm
The constitution is seriously out-of-date. When it was written, children were considered the PROPERTY of their parents and this is why there is barely a nod in their direction in that document when clearly there needs to be some kind of explanation concerning their welfare, what kind of rights they do have because if we are going to be idealistic about individual liberties, why on earth would we deny children their individual liberties as well? The issue isn't addressed in the constitution. We have no guidelines. We do know children are 100% persons even though the constitution does not tell us.
It is a vague document written by White Anglo Saxon Protestant men who felt persecuted by a king. It's a reactionary's document. That isn't saying that the ideals are lofty but how pragmatic are these ideals in today's world? How can you tell me that each of us can have individual liberty and at the same time demand we all do all these things as citizens? You cannot have it both ways. The number one problem with the constitution: IT IS SIMPLY TOO VAGUE. That's why we have so many constitutional issues going on. What we need are clear guidelines that are to be followed, not vague platitudes intended for a minority, bourgeoisie, ruling class. I am not dissing certain liberties but we need something more to go on than a vague term like, "individual liberties" which is just nonsense because we all know that is something that never happens in our society. You must answer to others for your actions and that, my friend, is not liberty. Of course, it was liberty to the plantation owner because he never had to answer to anyone but the banker. He could be as abusive as he wanted to women, slaves, children, and yes, at the time, he was free to do that and he wanted to protect that freedom and that was what the constitution was intended to do and it did for quite a while but we don't have slaves any more, women are seen as equals and children have more rights than they did back then so these vague terms are virtually useless to how we live today.
In order to help us all, government has the right to seize the child, vaccinate them, then promptly return them to their mom or dad in a way that is as non disruptive as possible but will still get the job done. I mean, if laws can be passed making me wear a seat belt or laws requiring parents put their children in car seats, none of which are addressed anywhere in the constitution yet no one belly aches about that, then pass laws that mandate vaccinations.
I disagree completely, but I will stipulate that your opinion might be true. It is, however, all we have got to work with. Unless and until the Constitution for the United States of America is amended, it remains the supreme law of our nation. As such, it is ultimately what will need to be changed (according to its own rules) before anyone is no longer subject to its provisions.
Okay then why must I wear a seatbelt, AspieUtah?
because cops need a reason to pull you over and fine you to get money to fund their new tanks
you don't think it is really for public safety do you?
I thought it was for insurance lobbies.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Arizona state House passes bill to repeal 1864 abortion ban |
24 Apr 2024, 4:22 pm |
| McConnell to step down as Senate GOP leader |
28 Feb 2024, 1:18 pm |
| Kyrsten Sinema Won't Seek Re-Election to the US Senate |
05 Mar 2024, 8:45 pm |
| California Teen killed by sheriff deputy |
13 Mar 2024, 3:10 pm |
