CA personal exemption for vaccines stricken except for homeschoolers

[SeaConquest]

What was the rationale for exempting home educated children with no medical issues from being vaccinated? 

 

Bill

 

Pushback from the home education community, for one, as you can see in this thread.

 

But second, SB277 faced a greater legal challenge because the CA constitution makes public education a fundamental right. Thus, to place restrictions on that right via a vaccination requirement would require greater scrutiny by the courts. So, they compromised by allowing all these other choices, including enrolling in public charter schools with no onsite component, to overcome likely constitutional legal challenges. 

[SeaConquest]

While I really don't want to debate the merits of vaccination, I do think it is important to note the loss of parental rights in this situation. As homeschoolers, this should be a primary concern, and the HSLDA does not support this legislation. I don't like fearmongering, but who is to say the same logic in this bill couldn't be applied to education in the future? Homeschooling was under attack in CA just a few years ago. If you believe it is worth it to relinquish those rights in exchange for safety or that people don't have the right to put others at risk with their freedom of choice in personal risk, that is valid. However, I would leave you with this quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Those who give essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." We may agree to disagree, but I feel parental rights is a cornerstone belief for homeschoolers.

 

I do believe this will affect homeschooling in the future, and I am very interested to see how this plays out in the charter schools, especially, given the definition of home instruction. Every bill has intended and unintended consequences.

 

I don't see these issues as at all analogous. How does my choice to homeschool (through a public charter, no less) negatively impact other students in California? You could argue, I suppose, that filing a private school affidavit reduces funding for the public school, but that applies to traditional private school students as well. If anything, California is moving in the opposite direction -- allowing students greater school choice (via traditional charters, homeschooling charters, by choicing into schools other than your neighborhood school).

 

The issue of vaccines is different because the choice to forego vaccination against communicable diseases very well could impact the health of other students in serious ways. Yes, parents have a right to make choices for their children, but not at the expense of the health of other children whose parents made a different decision. And, with respect to vaccines, we simply need herd immunity for them to be effective for the most vulnerable in our society.  

[Ellie]

I don't see these issues as at all analogous. How does my choice to homeschool (through a public charter, no less) negatively impact other students in California? You could argue, I suppose, that filing a private school affidavit reduces funding for the public school, but that applies to traditional private school students as well. If anything, California is moving in the opposite direction -- allowing students greater school choice (via traditional charters, homeschooling charters, by choicing into schools other than your neighborhood school).

 

 

Legally, your choice is public school. At home, but still public school. It is not, legally, the same choice that people make when they file their own affidavits or enroll their dc in a PSP. It's also still a win-win for California, because by enrolling your dc in a charter school, the public schools are still getting funding, and the state still has far more control over the education of your children than if they were enrolled in a private school.

[SeaConquest]

Legally, your choice is public school. At home, but still public school. It is not, legally, the same choice that people make when they file their own affidavits or enroll their dc in a PSP. It's also still a win-win for California, because by enrolling your dc in a charter school, the public schools are still getting funding, and the state still has far more control over the education of your children than if they were enrolled in a private school.

 

I understand that, Ellie, which is why my example was of someone filing a PSA. 

 

People are arguing that this is a tremendous loss for parental rights, and I just don't see it. In California, you still have numerous options -- both within and outside of the public school context -- for educating your children. No one is going after homeschooling, in large part because there is no such thing as homeschooling under California law. There are small private schools, large private schools, co-ops of parents, public charter schools with/without onsite classes (including so-called homeschooling charters, which are independent study programs), private tutors, PSPs, your local public school, public school outside of your neighborhood via inter and intra-school district choice programs. Parents have tons of choice in educating their kids California, even in a post-SB277 world. I challenge people to name a state that has more options than California re education.

[SeaConquest]

Update from the Sac Bee re the effort to bring this issue to referendum:

 

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article26005486.html

[Ellie]

I understand that, Ellie, which is why my example was of someone filing a PSA. 

 

People are arguing that this is a tremendous loss for parental rights, and I just don't see it. In California, you still have numerous options -- both within and outside of the public school context -- for educating your children. No one is going after homeschooling, in large part because there is no such thing as homeschooling under California law. There are small private schools, large private schools, co-ops of parents, public charter schools with/without onsite classes (including so-called homeschooling charters, which are independent study programs), private tutors, PSPs, your local public school, public school outside of your neighborhood via inter and intra-school district choice programs. Parents have tons of choice in educating their kids California, even in a post-SB277 world. I challenge people to name a state that has more options than California re education.

 

On August 8, 2008, the California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District confirmed in their In re Jonathan L. ruling (formerly In re Rachel L.) that “California statutes permit homeschooling as a species of private school education.†This means that yes, homeschooling is such a thing, because a court said so, not because of any legislation. California joins Texas and Illinois as states where homeschooling is legal because of a court case.

 

IMHO, public school officials still want control of those thousands of students who are taught at home as private school students. It is why parents have reported being pressured by school officials to enroll their children in charter schools or ISPs (and they are different from each other).

 

There are still only three legal options: public school, private school, tutored full-time by a credentialed teacher. It is true that within the first two options there are many variations.

[idnib]

IMHO, public school officials still want control of those thousands of students who are taught at home as private school students. It is why parents have reported being pressured by school officials to enroll their children in charter schools or ISPs (and they are different from each other).

 

I hadn't heard this. I'm not doubting you, just saying I haven't come across it nor had anyone tell me it happened. Is this common in certain districts? I'm assuming they're leaving kids who go to private schools on campuses alone.

[drjuliadc]

I am sorry to hear this passed. I do not live in California, and probably won't send my kids to public school, but I would homeschool if I had to in order to avoid vaccinating my children. I don't do any vaccinations for my children or myself because of the devastating effects they have had on me and my health. I would never dream of forcing someone else to NOT vaccinate their children if they chose to do so even though I am anti-vaccine for myself and family.

[idnib]

 I don't do any vaccinations for my children or myself because of the devastating effects they have had on me and my health. 

 

:grouphug:

 

I'm not willing to share my kids' vax status publicly (which does not imply they are unvaxed) but I will say that I also suffered vaccine damage when I was a child and I still feel its effects today, in my 40s. Ask anyone who suffers if they would rather have their health, or financial compensation.

[SeaConquest]

On August 8, 2008, the California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District confirmed in their In re Jonathan L. ruling (formerly In re Rachel L.) that “California statutes permit homeschooling as a species of private school education.†This means that yes, homeschooling is such a thing, because a court said so, not because of any legislation. California joins Texas and Illinois as states where homeschooling is legal because of a court case.

 

IMHO, public school officials still want control of those thousands of students who are taught at home as private school students. It is why parents have reported being pressured by school officials to enroll their children in charter schools or ISPs (and they are different from each other).

 

There are still only three legal options: public school, private school, tutored full-time by a credentialed teacher. It is true that within the first two options there are many variations.

 

Thank you for the citation, Ellie. I appreciate the clarification. 

 

I have no personal or anecdotal experience with your second point. We chose a public charter because it works well for my extremely extroverted child.

 

For those that have been injured by vaccines, I am truly sorry. My oldest did have a reaction to one shot, such that his ped filed a report with VAERS. She also noted a medical exemption in his record. He has had 3 different peds in his life, and the exemption has never been an issue. We still vaxed for everything else. Personally, if a ped was giving me grief about a medical exemption (for family or personal history), I would find a new ped.

[AdventuresinHomeschooling]

This is what I had to do with several bad experiences with a pediatric office. Many pediatricians are under pressure to vaccinate everyone and do not always listen to family history. My next pediatrician accommodated us, but they were difficult to work with. (I edited this to remove some personal medical information that wasn't wise to share in this setting.)

 

Regarding the previous argument I made, the argument is that we, the experts, know what is best for you and for society. Education is a public right because it benefits society. Vaccinations also benefit society. You, the parents, cannot make the decisions on what is best for your children, because medical professionals alone are qualified to decide those risks for you because of their benefit to society as a whole. Perhaps our non-standardized education is seen as a risk to society instead of the Common Core standards that experts have created with lots of research. Reading to our children at night is now seen as an unfair advantage in the social equity argument, In 2008, homeschooling was under fire and only protected because it was legally a private school. I was in a public policy PhD program, and no one in the program believed it was the parents responsibility or even their right to educate their child, but society as a whole.

 

I enjoy the rights we have and options we have in educating our kids here in CA, and I would move in a heartbeat if they ever went away. There is a large amount of support for homeschooling that protects our rights. Yes, it sounds strange to think we will lose all of our freedoms when we just lost one, especially when this bill protected homeschoolers still, but freedoms are usually removed one by one. It is naive to think there are not people against homeschooling who could gain traction. There are probably better arguments, but this is one that now has legislative success against eroding parental rights.

 

As far as a state that has more options than we do, Nevada just allowed school vouchers. I'd imagine they have even greater options, but maybe you just meant types of programs.

[idnib]

Regarding the previous argument I made, the argument is that we, the experts, know what is best for you and for society. Education is a public right because it benefits society. Vaccinations also benefit society. You, the parents, cannot make the decisions on what is best for your children, because medical professionals alone are qualified to decide those risks for you because of their benefit to society as a whole. Perhaps our non-standardized education is seen as a risk to society instead of the Common Core standards that experts have created with lots of research. Reading to our children at night is now seen as an unfair advantage in the social equity argument, In 2008, homeschooling was under fire and only protected because it was legally a private school. I was in a public policy PhD program, and no one in the program believed it was the parents responsibility or even their right to educate their child, but society as a whole.

 

Yeah, it's interesting to apply the philosophy to other areas.

 

You must purchase and drive a driverless car because everyone is at risk when a human drives. Others have made sacrifices to buy these cars sold by a private company, and because they chose to be more safe, you must too. It's not fair to them that you might cause an accident with one of their driverless cars. Despite the fact that those driverless cars have excellent built-in accident avoidance systems, you are not allowed to partake of the street system you paid for through your taxes if you don't have one. You may, however, build your own streets. You have the time and money, so you have a choice.

[Ellie]

I hadn't heard this. I'm not doubting you, just saying I haven't come across it nor had anyone tell me it happened. Is this common in certain districts? I'm assuming they're leaving kids who go to private schools on campuses alone.

 

There are 50+ counties in California, so it isn't surprising that you haven't come across it. And it might not be as common as it was previously, which just makes my point: the state has done an excellent job of enticing parents to enroll their children in public school programs by offering stipends and other "free" stuff.

 

Public school officials do not know which students are enrolled in private schools...unless their parents file an affidavit with only one or two children on it. That makes it pretty obvious that there's homeschooling going on. :-)

[dauphin]

What was the rationale for exempting home educated children with no medical issues from being vaccinated? 

 

Bill

 

My thoughts on rereading the title of the thread was more along the lines of: what was the lobby that enabled this to happen? 

[Spy Car]

My thoughts on rereading the title of the thread was more along the lines of: what was the lobby that enabled this to happen? 

 

That would be the lobby that thinks eliminating diseases like smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, yellow fever, whooping cough, polio, and measles is a good idea.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

[bgtw]

My thoughts on rereading the title of the thread was more along the lines of: what was the lobby that enabled this to happen? 

 

 

That would be the lobby that thinks eliminating diseases like smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, yellow fever, whooping cough, polio, and measles is a good idea.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

 

I could be way off base, but I took dauphin's question as what lobby enabled homeschoolers to be exempt from the bill, not what lobby enabled the entire bill.  

[Spy Car]

I could be way off base, but I took dauphin's question as what lobby enabled homeschoolers to be exempt from the bill, not what lobby enabled the entire bill.  

 

How home educated children with no medical issues were exempted (and why?) was my question.

 

Bill

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's the same basically in NY.  There are no vaccine requirements for homeschooled kids.  My guess is it would just be too much to keep track of.  I do get my kids vaccinated though.  I believe it's very important. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Maybe it was exempted because they felt it comprised a small number and didn't want to create some sort of way to track it?  That's all I can think of. It's pretty hard to get by forever without someone asking for vaccine records.  If it's not school, it's camps, sports, colleges, etc.  I still have yet to be required to furnish proof of vaccines though.  My oldest is 13.  It has not yet come up.  But on the other hand, who would ask me for proof if my kids are not enrolled in programs requiring it?  I barely get any attention on my required paperwork as it is.  They really don't do any sort of thorough job. 

[idnib]

My thoughts on rereading the title of the thread was more along the lines of: what was the lobby that enabled this to happen? 

 

It's behind a paywall, but the Sac Bee had an article that the pharmaceutical industry has maintained it's distance from this specific measure, but donated about $2,000,000 to various (re-)election campaigns during the last election. I would say the most overt (in the chamber and news) lobbying has come from lobbyists hired by the CA Medical Association.

 

I don't think it was that difficult to overcome though. The majority of CA citizens support the bill and there are precedents in other states.

[idnib]

How home educated children with no medical issues were exempted (and why?) was my question.

 

Bill

 

I believe I read (but am not 100% certain) that the pro-bill people were running into the problem that an education is a guaranteed right for a child, and if there were absolutely no options but vaccination, a good case could be made that the bill violated that very basic right. Adding homeschooling and independent study removed a large part of that argument for opponents. They probably figured it's a small number of people, most of whom will eventually get vaccinated for programs, college, travel abroad, etc.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Reading the text of the bill itself, it looks like anything post-high school (including community colleges) is NOT included in the bill. What I am not sure on is how this will all pertain to DE students, who are technically high school students attending a college.

 

When my ds was DE in CA, they only wanted proof of the vax required for college (iirc only MMR). They didn't ask about childhood vax.

[bgtw]

I believe I read (but am not 100% certain) that the pro-bill people were running into the problem that an education is a guaranteed right for a child, and if there were absolutely no options but vaccination, a good case could be made that the bill violated that very basic right. 

 

Yup, and without that they weren't going to get the necessary votes to pass it, let alone see if it would stand up in court.  

[TranquilMind]

I understand that, Ellie, which is why my example was of someone filing a PSA. 

 

People are arguing that this is a tremendous loss for parental rights, and I just don't see it. In California, you still have numerous options -- both within and outside of the public school context -- for educating your children. No one is going after homeschooling, in large part because there is no such thing as homeschooling under California law. There are small private schools, large private schools, co-ops of parents, public charter schools with/without onsite classes (including so-called homeschooling charters, which are independent study programs), private tutors, PSPs, your local public school, public school outside of your neighborhood via inter and intra-school district choice programs. Parents have tons of choice in educating their kids California, even in a post-SB277 world. I challenge people to name a state that has more options than California re education.

You don't see an issue because you agree with it. 

The problem is that they are intentionally shoehorning all of those "undesirables" who may be currently selectively vaccinated (or not vaccinated, or behind the breakneck schedule) into few options that will then disappear as they age,  regardless of the biological differences of different kids.  We adults don't all respond to any drug the same way, and many of us have bad reactions to some drug the doctor prescribes.  Great, we just quit taking it and usually are able to recover just fine.  However, if it has been injected, the damage can be temporary or lifelong and the response is merely "Sucks to be you, you are expendable for the sake of others".  Parents know their own kids and their reactions better than anyone else and need to be able to make these decisions. 

 

They are intentionally creating a "pariah" class despite the fact that hundreds of people are around us every day who are at various stages of vaccinated/selectively vaccinated/unvaccinated/sick conditions. If you have seen the vitriolic spewing  online about this issue, then you know what I mean.  These kids in California will not be able to attend high schools or college unless they get every one of the ever-growing list of these vaccines, regardless of previous reactions or allergies.  It isn't as if you can undo them if they make you sick.   

 

Because you agree with the one-size-fits-all complete vaccination dogma that rules today, you see this as fine.  But classifications are being made every day that may affect you.  New vaccines that are highly dangerous (like HPV, which has killed over a 100 girls last time I looked) will be introduced and eventually required without any ability to decline them.    Lots of vaccines are in the pipeline.  Everytime they find an existing vaccine is less than useful, instead of remove it, they decide you should have more doses. ??  The flu vaccine was 20% effective this year but they still hassled people mercilessly to get them.  Do you want to be injected with all whatever is offered without ability to choose, or wait and see what affects occur with something new? 

 

If you think new demands won't be made in other areas of health as well, you are very optimistic. 

 

This door to parental decision making for their own children based on their knowledge of said children must remain firmly open. 

[TranquilMind]

That would be the lobby that thinks eliminating diseases like smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, yellow fever, whooping cough, polio, and measles is a good idea.

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

At the cost of biologically susceptible children, which, if they aren't yours, apparently are not important. 

That's what I can't fathom about this push to demand everyone vaccinate regardless of the risk to the individual child.  That risk has to be voluntarily undertaken. 

[TranquilMind]

It's the same basically in NY.  There are no vaccine requirements for homeschooled kids.  My guess is it would just be too much to keep track of.  I do get my kids vaccinated though.  I believe it's very important. 

It is your business.  As long as you keep track of it, that should be sufficient.  Not the school's business. 

[Spy Car]

At the cost of biologically susceptible children, which, if they aren't yours, apparently are not important. 

That's what I can't fathom about this push to demand everyone vaccinate regardless of the risk to the individual child.  That risk has to be voluntarily undertaken. 

 

Are you kidding me???

 

Millions and millions of human lives have been saved by vaccines.

 

How dare you!

 

Bill

[TranquilMind]

Are you kidding me???

 

Millions and millions of human lives have been saved by vaccines.

 

How dare you!

 

Bill

I've had it with the out-of-control witch hunting on this issue. 

 

Vaccine results speak for themselves for good and ill (depending on vaccine).    Enforcement with a sledgehammer is not necessary with something that benefits people.  It needs to be their choice. 

 

Why so fearful of people making choices based on their own children's best interests?    I'm simply not fearful in that way.

Anytime some rogue actor intentionally spreads disease, we have legal means to stop that. 

[Spy Car]

I've had it with the out-of-control witch hunting on this issue. 

 

Vaccine results speak for themselves for good and ill (depending on vaccine).    Enforcement with a sledgehammer is not necessary with something that benefits people.  It needs to be their choice. 

 

Why so fearful of people making choices based on their own children's best interests?    I'm simply not fearful in that way.

Anytime some rogue actor intentionally spreads disease, we have legal means to stop that. 

 

Witch hunting? I'm just old enough to have grown up a classmate that had polio. Try that for perspective. She struggled to live a (mostly) normal life. Beautiful girl. I hear things are tough for her now.

 

Peoples memories seem to be short. There are some serious disease that have been tamed though vaccinations. Having come-backs of serious preventable diseases is the last thing we need.

 

Bill

[SparklyUnicorn]

It is your business.  As long as you keep track of it, that should be sufficient.  Not the school's business. 

 

Yeah I don't get the impression they care.

[SparklyUnicorn]

At the cost of biologically susceptible children, which, if they aren't yours, apparently are not important. 

That's what I can't fathom about this push to demand everyone vaccinate regardless of the risk to the individual child.  That risk has to be voluntarily undertaken. 

 

I don't think he is against biologically susceptible children not getting vaccinations.  I would assume he'd think that's the purpose of herd immunity.  If every single person got them no matter what would we even be needing to really worry about this? 

My thought with my own children is I don't worry about it because I get them vaccinated . But if I have a kid who cannot be vaccinated, yes I'd worry.

[SeaConquest]

You don't see an issue because you agree with it. 

The problem is that they are intentionally shoehorning all of those "undesirables" who may be currently selectively vaccinated (or not vaccinated, or behind the breakneck schedule) into few options that will then disappear as they age,  regardless of the biological differences of different kids.  We adults don't all respond to any drug the same way, and many of us have bad reactions to some drug the doctor prescribes.  Great, we just quit taking it and usually are able to recover just fine.  However, if it has been injected, the damage can be temporary or lifelong and the response is merely "Sucks to be you, you are expendable for the sake of others".  Parents know their own kids and their reactions better than anyone else and need to be able to make these decisions. 

 

They are intentionally creating a "pariah" class despite the fact that hundreds of people are around us every day who are at various stages of vaccinated/selectively vaccinated/unvaccinated/sick conditions. If you have seen the vitriolic spewing  online about this issue, then you know what I mean.  These kids in California will not be able to attend high schools or college unless they get every one of the ever-growing list of these vaccines, regardless of previous reactions or allergies.  It isn't as if you can undo them if they make you sick.   

 

Because you agree with the one-size-fits-all complete vaccination dogma that rules today, you see this as fine.  But classifications are being made every day that may affect you.  New vaccines that are highly dangerous (like HPV, which has killed over a 100 girls last time I looked) will be introduced and eventually required without any ability to decline them.    Lots of vaccines are in the pipeline.  Everytime they find an existing vaccine is less than useful, instead of remove it, they decide you should have more doses. ??  The flu vaccine was 20% effective this year but they still hassled people mercilessly to get them.  Do you want to be injected with all whatever is offered without ability to choose, or wait and see what affects occur with something new? 

 

If you think new demands won't be made in other areas of health as well, you are very optimistic. 

 

This door to parental decision making for their own children based on their knowledge of said children must remain firmly open. 

 

I have never said that I agree with a one-size-fits-all vaccination dogma. Nothing in this law is precluding a parent from vaccinating one at a time to watch for issues. No one is saying that you must follow the CDC schedule, or that you need to have every vaccine in the pipeline going forward. In fact, the PBE was expressly grandfathered into the law for any new vaccine added to the CA-mandated list.

 

The law is not creating a pariah class -- nonvaxers are doing that all for themselves. This law was written by a pediatrician and a concerned mother of a young child, who lives in an area with a low vaccination rate. It was written, not as some sort of powergrab or conspiracy by BIG PHARMA, but because so many people are refusing to vaccinate in our state, without a medical reason, that we are experiencing outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in decades. People are becoming pariahs because the science is not in dispute, and because innocent people are being harmed by the choices made by so many others.

 

I do not dispute that harm from vaccines occurs, and I certainly don't believe that anyone's children are "expendable," but I have not had any difficulty in obtaining a medical exemption where there are legitimate reasons for one. And I know many others who have succeeded in this purportedly Herculean feat. Yes, it is up to the doctor's discretion. But, if you feel that you do not have a good working relationship with your physician, such that your legitimate medical concerns are being disrespected, I would find another doctor.

 

Parents had the right to make these decisions for their children. Unfortunately for public health, too many of them have abused that right. And, IMHO, SB277 is a sensible response to the problem, with numerous educational choices for parents still intact.  

[Spy Car]

I don't think he is against biologically susceptible children not getting vaccinations.  I would assume he'd think that's the purpose of herd immunity.  If every single person got them no matter what would we even be needing to really worry about this? 

My thought with my own children is I don't worry about it because I get them vaccinated . But if I have a kid who cannot be vaccinated, yes I'd worry.

 

Right you are. Herd immunity protects the most vulnerable. That's the way it works.

 

Bill

[SeaConquest]

Right you are. Herd immunity protects the most vulnerable. That's the way it works.

 

Bill

 

It’s no secret that the protection afforded by measles vaccination is crumbling in the US, thanks to parents who have been given bad information turning away from the vaccine. Last year—a year in which the US experienced a record number of measles cases—CDC research found this: “Despite a national MMR vaccination coverage level of 91.9%, one child in 12 in the United States is not receiving their first dose of MMR vaccine on time, underscoring considerable measles susceptibility across the country.â€

 

When people prevent or delay their children’s vaccinations, it isn’t only their children they put in danger. The fence of protection that vaccine-induced immunity throws up around all of us protects not only those who are vaccinated, but those who can’t be: infants too young to get the vaccine and anyone who, like the Washington woman, possesses an immune system undermined by medical treatment or biological hazard. (And, most of the time, older people whose immune systems are decaying—but not in the case of measles, because anyone born before 1957, when measles was common, has natural immunity to the disease.)

 

Those unknown vulnerables represent a lot of people: cancer patients undergoing treatment, transplant recipients taking anti-rejection drugs, people living with HIV, anyone with an inborn immune deficiency, anyone getting high doses of steroids—and the 4 million children in the United States who at any point are less than 12 months old, the recommended age for the first dose of measles vaccine. 

 

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/02/measles-death-us/

[TranquilMind]

Witch hunting? I'm just old enough to have grown up a classmate that had polio. Try that for perspective. She struggled to live a (mostly) normal life. Beautiful girl. I hear things are tough for her now.

 

Peoples memories seem to be short. There are some serious disease that have been tamed though vaccinations. Having come-backs of serious preventable diseases is the last thing we need.

 

Bill

I'm old enough too.

 

I'm also aware enough to have seen some beautiful young girls permanently damaged by the HPV vaccine, some in wheelchairs.    I've also known other damaged individuals, because we all are not the same, biologically and do not all react the same way to any given drug.  One size fits all is simply an untenable position unless you consider susceptible people merely collateral damage, in which case I might point out that your caring attitude is showing. 

 

The onus for the decision should be on the parents, where it belongs, and would be if we hadn't legislated all liability away from vaccine makers.  Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and others get hit hard with multi-billion dollar judgments routinely for other drugs, because hey, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission and toss a few bucks,  but enjoy complete immunity for vaccines. 

 

[TranquilMind]

Right you are. Herd immunity protects the most vulnerable. That's the way it works.

 

Bill

Unless your members of the herd are the most vulnerable to vaccine side effects.  Then you can have a 100% failure rate, but hey, everyone else is fine so who cares? 

[albeto.]

Does the law require vaccination of school children regardless of risk, or is it hard to establish risk, or are people afraid their kids may be at risk and don't know it? 

 

I'm just wondering what the push-back is.

 

I can't fathom why location of one's education should be an exception to a health code, but whatever. 

[SeaConquest]

Does the law require vaccination of school children regardless of risk, or is it hard to establish risk, or are people afraid their kids may be at risk and don't know it? 

 

I'm just wondering what the push-back is.

 

I can't fathom why location of one's education should be an exception to a health code, but whatever. 

 

The law specifically leaves the decision re a medical exemption to the physician's discretion, but, as I recall, family history was one of the examples mentioned in the law. It was certainly in the legislative history, if anyone watched the hearings on the bill.

[SeaConquest]

120370.

 (a) If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325, but excluding Section 120380) and Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415 to the extent indicated by the physician’s statement.

[Spy Car]

Unless your members of the herd are the most vulnerable to vaccine side effects.  Then you can have a 100% failure rate, but hey, everyone else is fine so who cares? 

 

That is why medical exemptions exist.

 

Bill

[TranquilMind]

Does the law require vaccination of school children regardless of risk, or is it hard to establish risk, or are people afraid their kids may be at risk and don't know it? 

 

I'm just wondering what the push-back is.

 

I can't fathom why location of one's education should be an exception to a health code, but whatever. 

I can't fathom why one's health status is remotely relevant to one's education myself. 

 

Those two are rightly separated in some countries. 

[albeto.]

I can't fathom why one's health status is remotely relevant to one's education myself. 

 

Those two are rightly separated in some countries. 

 

Me neither, except I suppose entering school is as convenient a time as any to make sure all children are up to date with vaccinations.

 

Your "sledgehammer" tactics seem entirely imaginary, unless children are being vaccinated by force and we don't know about it. 

 

I always think of that photograph of young Elián González from Cuba when I think of people warning others about forced vaccinations. I recall asking on Sonlight if people really thought the Obama administration would send out military units home to home to force vaccines on children. Interestingly, some people really did expect that to happen. When you talk of "sledgehammer" tactics, I wonder if you expect this behavior to include armed forces marching into homes as well.

[TranquilMind]

That is why medical exemptions exist.

 

Bill

Most children do not "qualify" even after a previous horrendous reaction.    The CDC orders Doctors to grant them only for children who are on chemotherapy, who have received an organ transplant (or complete blood transfusion, for a time, anyway),or have Severe Combined Immune Deficiency.

 

So yeah...that will happen for maybe 25 kids in a state who are the sickest, and only until they are deemed recovered.  No exemptions for other illnesses, no matter how severe, for sibling reactions, no matter how bad,  for pregnancy, for prematurity/delay,  low weight (you get the same vaccine dose as that big honking 100 pound kid),  no exemption for brain disorders, lupus, other neurological disorders, etc.    They are all expendable according to some. 

 

Look it up.   

[TranquilMind]

Me neither, except I suppose entering school is as convenient a time as any to make sure all children are up to date with vaccinations.

 

Your "sledgehammer" tactics seem entirely imaginary, unless children are being vaccinated by force and we don't know about it. 

 

I always think of that photograph of young Elián González from Cuba when I think of people warning others about forced vaccinations. I recall asking on Sonlight if people really thought the Obama administration would send out military units home to home to force vaccines on children. Interestingly, some people really did expect that to happen. When you talk of "sledgehammer" tactics, I wonder if you expect this behavior to include armed forces marching into homes as well.

Not specifically vaccinated "by force" the way you mean it, currently anyway, unless you count the force of compliance or else expulsion from medical practices, shaming,  expulsion of kid from school or other events, and that kind of thing,  even if he isn't ill, which I am sure you will find unimportant.

 

I happen to trust a parent to know what is in his/her child's best interest, based on his/her intimate knowledge of that child and previous reactions and/or health status.   The more educated the parent, the more likely the parent knows what is best. 

 

Others think the government knows what is best for them as an amorphous group, without regard to individual weaknesses. 

[SeaConquest]

Most children do not "qualify" even after a previous horrendous reaction.    The CDC orders Doctors to grant them only for children who are on chemotherapy, who have received an organ transplant (or complete blood transfusion, for a time, anyway),or have Severe Combined Immune Deficiency.

 

So yeah...that will happen for maybe 25 kids in a state who are the sickest, and only until they are deemed recovered.  No exemptions for other illnesses, no matter how severe, for sibling reactions, no matter how bad,  for pregnancy, for prematurity/delay,  low weight (you get the same vaccine dose as that big honking 100 pound kid),  no exemption for brain disorders, lupus, other neurological disorders, etc.    They are all expendable according to some. 

Look it up.   

 

While there may be some physicians who are this strict, that has not been my experience at all. My son has none of the health conditions you describe (he has no health conditions at all), and yet, a medical exemption has been a non-issue at 3 peds. And these are not the peds who are known to be loose re vaccines. These were just run-of-the-mill peds. If you want a medical exemption, there are plenty of doctors in California who will give them to you. And I expect people will continue to shop around.

[SeaConquest]

Not specifically vaccinated "by force" the way you mean it, currently anyway, unless you count the force of compliance or else expulsion from medical practices, shaming,  expulsion of kid from school or other events, and that kind of thing,  even if he isn't ill, which I am sure you will find unimportant.

 

I happen to trust a parent to know what is in his/her child's best interest, based on his/her intimate knowledge of that child and previous reactions and/or health status.   The more educated the parent, the more likely the parent knows what is best. 

 

Others think the government knows what is best for them as an amorphous group, without regard to individual weaknesses. 

 

Many would argue that is the opposite of what has been happening here:

 

http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/04/vaccine-refusal-how-privileged-mothers-leverage-their-privilege-and-harm-the-less-fortunate.html

[TranquilMind]

Many would argue that is the opposite of what has been happening here:

 

http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/04/vaccine-refusal-how-privileged-mothers-leverage-their-privilege-and-harm-the-less-fortunate.html 

Well, they can skew it however they wish.  Lies, damn lies, and statistics and all that.

 

I just don't care what others do so long as they keep their hands to themselves and don't try to infringe on even the bodily integrity and medical decisions of others.   Geez. 

And that page is not found. 

[albeto.]

Not specifically vaccinated "by force" the way you mean it, unless you count the force of compliance or else expulsion from practices, expulsion of kid from school or events, and that kind of thing, which I am sure you will find minimal. 

I happen to trust a parent to know what is in his/her child's best interest, based on his/her intimate knowledge of that child and previous reactions and/or health status. 

 

Others think the government knows what is best for them as an amorphous group, without regard to individual weaknesses. 

 

But we're seeing the effects of trusting people to know what's best for society - they don't. They buy the conspiracy theories (increasingly easy to find with the internet), and are more readily persuaded by experiential thinking than rational thinking. People are starting to succumb to diseases that had been almost eradicated because of paranoid thinking. You keep referring to pharmaceuticals profiting from the sales of vaccines regardless of any potential dangers. While we can see support for the idea that psychopaths are most commonly represented in CEO positions, we can't assume the researchers and creators don't have sufficient empathy for the plight of children at risk for adverse reactions.

 

But here's the thing, those who write blogs and books and speak in public about the dangers of vaccines, those who promote this paranoia against science, they're doing the same thing you accuse pharmaceuticals of doing.

 

They're promoting certain actions, regardless of ethical problems, because... profit!

 

In they're case, selling to the gullible and frightened. It's almost as if the act of taking advantage of people for profit is only concerning for you if it's a huge profit, or if it sticks it to Big Brother. People who advocate no vaccines are doing no different. In fact, I'd argue they're acting in a known morally deficient way because the evidence of vaccines is so well established, it's not possible to reasonably argue against. 

[idnib]

I have never said that I agree with a one-size-fits-all vaccination dogma. Nothing in this law is precluding a parent from vaccinating one at a time to watch for issues. No one is saying that you must follow the CDC schedule, or that you need to have every vaccine in the pipeline going forward. In fact, the PBE was expressly grandfathered into the law for any new vaccine added to the CA-mandated list.

 

The law is not creating a pariah class -- nonvaxers are doing that all for themselves. This law was written by a pediatrician and a concerned mother of a young child, who lives in an area with a low vaccination rate. It was written, not as some sort of powergrab or conspiracy by BIG PHARMA, but because so many people are refusing to vaccinate in our state, without a medical reason, that we are experiencing outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in decades. People are becoming pariahs because the science is not in dispute, and because innocent people are being harmed by the choices made by so many others.

 

I do not dispute that harm from vaccines occurs, and I certainly don't believe that anyone's children are "expendable," but I have not had any difficulty in obtaining a medical exemption where there are legitimate reasons for one. And I know many others who have succeeded in this purportedly Herculean feat. Yes, it is up to the doctor's discretion. But, if you feel that you do not have a good working relationship with your physician, such that your legitimate medical concerns are being disrespected, I would find another doctor.

 

Parents had the right to make these decisions for their children. Unfortunately for public health, too many of them have abused that right. And, IMHO, SB277 is a sensible response to the problem, with numerous educational choices for parents still intact.  

 

Respectfully...

 

Would you mind if I put this into the analogy I posted earlier for self-driving cars? I am certain that over time science will show that self-driving cars are safer than cars driven by people.

 

Do you think if a family purchases a product designed to protect their family, and that product works better if everyone buys it but also works better than nothing if others don't follow suit, the purchaser the right to make everyone purchase the same product so they can be safer?

 

Do you agree that some people are more vulnerable drivers (new drivers, the elderly, people who must drive when tired, people with distracting babies and toddlers) and therefore you must protect their safety by purchasing this new car? And rather than encouraging that purchase through education and marketing, it must be the law?

 

I'm against someone saying, "Hey I bought this new car and it's safer than my old human-driven car, so that's good. But you know what would make me even safer? If everyone had to drive this car! Lots of people are in car accidents and this would help! I'm going to pass a law that everyone has to buy it!"

 

There are so many modern products that people around me could buy that would make me safer. If everyone were required to own a cell phone I could have more assurance someone could call 911 if I were unconscious. If every building was required to have an automated external defibrillator, I would be safer. If every car was required to have a backup camera and cars without one were banned, I would be safer. And so on.

 

To me there's a world of difference between government doing things to make people safer (traffic planning, crosswalks, auto safety standards) and legislatively making a person purchase (and inject!)  a product from  a particular company.

 

I suppose one could try and draw an analogy to the time when CA made all drivers start carrying proof of insurance. Of course, people drive without insurance all the time. But vaccination is easier to enforce because almost all kids in K and 7th go to school. But the analogy falls apart when you realize that someone can decide to stop driving at any time if they don't want to purchase insurance. Once someone has been vaccine damaged, they can't go back. And you can't always tell ahead of time who that will happen to, which is why the responsibility to make that decision should be with the parents or guardians.

 

Just saying again that I'm not implying my kids are vaccinated or unvaccinated. I like to keep my kids' medical info off of message boards.

[TranquilMind]

But we're seeing the effects of trusting people to know what's best for society - they don't. They buy the conspiracy theories (increasingly easy to find with the internet), and are more readily persuaded by experiential thinking than rational thinking. People are starting to succumb to diseases that had been almost eradicated because of paranoid thinking. You keep referring to pharmaceuticals profiting from the sales of vaccines regardless of any potential dangers. While we can see support for the idea that psychopaths are most commonly represented in CEO positions, we can't assume the researchers and creators don't have sufficient empathy for the plight of children at risk for adverse reactions.

 

But here's the thing, those who write blogs and books and speak in public about the dangers of vaccines, those who promote this paranoia against science, they're doing the same thing you accuse pharmaceuticals of doing.

 

They're promoting certain actions, regardless of ethical problems, because... profit!

 

In they're case, selling to the gullible and frightened. It's almost as if the act of taking advantage of people for profit is only concerning for you if it's a huge profit, or if it sticks it to Big Brother. People who advocate no vaccines are doing no different. In fact, I'd argue they're acting in a known morally deficient way because the evidence of vaccines is so well established, it's not possible to reasonably argue against. 

OR some of them have legitimate concerns.   You don't seem to allow for that possibility.  All those parents are just conspiracy theorists apparently. 

 

Diseases are popping back up because some vaccines are not effective.  So the answer to that is "give it again regularly!"  How is this rational? 

 

There are indeed fearmongers doing the same thing on both sides.  It is important to sift the facts enough to at least attempt to see where the truth lies, and not just take it on face value, or God forbid, ignore your instincts, as many parents have been ordered to do.