California people: new immunization exemption requirements

[Ellie]

I haven't seen this posted, so here it is.

 

AB 2109--Vaccination Waiver

 

As long as you are homeschooling, no government entity knows whether your children have been vaccinated or not...unless you use the services of a PSP, because the administrators of most of them follow the immunization requirements, which should include keeping health and immunization records on file.

 

If your children are enrolled in a public charter school, you'd have to jump through these new hoops if you wanted waivers for your children.

 

Nevertheless, parents shouldn't have to do this kind of carp if they don't want their children vaccinated, regardless of what kind of education they choose for their children.

[NASDAQ]

IDK. I don't see why it isn't a legitimate public health interest to keep the numbers of vaccinated children high and keep track of where and why children are not vaccinated, especially when children are coming together in environments that can easily lead to the rapid spread of disease.

[heliconian]

IDK. I don't see why it isn't a legitimate public health interest to keep the numbers of vaccinated children high and keep track of where and why children are not vaccinated, especially when children are coming together in environments that can easily lead to the rapid spread of disease.

 

I have to agree. Schools are perfect breeding grounds for epidemics, and schools have to protect the children who can't get vaccinated. This is information the schools need. However, I think that requiring the exemption forms to be signed by a physician, even if the exemption is filed on the basis of personal beliefs, seems inappropriate.

[MarinesWife]

Because it should be optional. Oh wait...it is optional in life.

 

Whether you want children to get vaccines or not, it is the right of the parent to choose. A parent shouldn't have to get a waiver for CHOOSING to not participate in something that isn't completely mandatory.

 

The bottom line is that the government is trying to make it harder and harder for parents to choose differently from the norm.

 

It's one reason I'm so thankful for homeschool watch groups.

[TranquilMind]

IDK. I don't see why it isn't a legitimate public health interest to keep the numbers of vaccinated children high and keep track of where and why children are not vaccinated, especially when children are coming together in environments that can easily lead to the rapid spread of disease.

The point is that the waiver has basically been eliminated. NO doctor will stand against his profession's dogma that vaccines are completely safe no matter how many and how early for all kids. No doctor will provide the signature that this law will require a parent to get to exercise his OWN personal belief waiver.

 

That is simply wrong and a constitutional violation. But then that's all the rage today...

[Ellie]

IDK. I don't see why it isn't a legitimate public health interest to keep the numbers of vaccinated children high and keep track of where and why children are not vaccinated, especially when children are coming together in environments that can easily lead to the rapid spread of disease.

Did you read the legislation? That's why it's an issue.

 

It is not the government's job to keep track of where and why children are or are not vaccinated.

[Ellie]

The point is that the waiver has basically been eliminated. NO doctor will stand against his profession's dogma that vaccines are completely safe no matter how many and how early for all kids. No doctor will provide the signature that this law will require a parent to get to exercise his OWN personal belief waiver.

 

That is simply wrong and a constitutional violation. But then that's all the rage today...

:iagree:

 

I was stunned to find out, when I moved to Texas, that the state health department keeps a data base of all public school children's vaccinations.:blink: In order to opt out of having to provide vaccination information to public schools, parents must request, in writing, a form from the health department, which must be notarized, and they have to do that every two years. :blink:

[NASDAQ]

I did read it, although I didn't see it in what you linked. I found the legislation here, although it's the introduced version and idk if they amended something

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2109_bill_20120223_introduced.html

 

The government has a role in maintaining public health and in setting requirements that must be complied with when children attend public school. You might feel it's an inappropriate role for the government, but it's absolutely part of what states currently do and are expected to do.

[NASDAQ]

Also, it would help me out a lot if someone could point out for me where this violates the constitution?

[jennynd]

I am sorry, but I will not want my kids go to school, playground,movie theaters with kids not vaccined. When I lived in Indiana, there was an infant die of a disease because he was contracted something his brother got from another kid on the playground who did not vaccined. I am fine with parents choose not to vaccine, but I will like to have the right to know who are those kids so I also have a choose not to have my kids hanging out with those kids.

[Ellie]

I am sorry, but I will not want my kids go to school, playground,movie theaters with kids not vaccined. When I lived in Indiana, there was an infant die of a disease because he was contracted something his brother got from another kid on the playground who did not vaccined. I am fine with parents choose not to vaccine, but I will like to have the right to know who are those kids so I also have a choose not to have my kids hanging out with those kids.

No one is suggesting that people not vaccinate their children. What we're saying is that the government doesn't have the authority--or shouldn't have it, anyway--to do what the law would require.

 

I don't know how you could possibly know whose children are vaccinated or not. I'm sure that would be confidential information.

[Ellie]

I did read it, although I didn't see it in what you linked. I found the legislation here, although it's the introduced version and idk if they amended something

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2109_bill_20120223_introduced.html

 

The government has a role in maintaining public health and in setting requirements that must be complied with when children attend public school. You might feel it's an inappropriate role for the government, but it's absolutely part of what states currently do and are expected to do.

No, it isn't a part of what "states currently do and are expected to do."

 

I do NOT expect the government to keep track of my child's vaccinations. In California, public schools keep track of children's vaccinations by recording them on a form provided by the health department. The government has decided which vaccinations children should have. That is as far as the government's authority should go.

[laundrycrisis]

I am sorry, but I will not want my kids go to school, playground,movie theaters with kids not vaccined. When I lived in Indiana, there was an infant die of a disease because he was contracted something his brother got from another kid on the playground who did not vaccined. I am fine with parents choose not to vaccine, but I will like to have the right to know who are those kids so I also have a choose not to have my kids hanging out with those kids.

 

If you think the vaccines work so well and are safe, vaccinate your own kids. If you don't want to be exposed to unvaccinated or under-vaccinated people, don't ever leave your house. Because there are adults walking around all over the place whose childhood vaccine for pertussis, if they ever had it all, has worn off. Adults get pertussis and doctors don't diagnose it, because they don't want the trouble of reporting it. I know - it happened to me ! Keep your kids away from adults with hacking coughs. Don't worry about other people's vaccines. You do not have a personal right to know other people's confidential medical details.

 

The idea that the government gets to decide that foreign matter must be injected into the private, personal bodies of its citizens, or that it has some right to know and keep track of this information, is nauseating.

[TranquilMind]

I am sorry, but I will not want my kids go to school, playground,movie theaters with kids not vaccined. When I lived in Indiana, there was an infant die of a disease because he was contracted something his brother got from another kid on the playground who did not vaccined. I am fine with parents choose not to vaccine, but I will like to have the right to know who are those kids so I also have a choose not to have my kids hanging out with those kids.

 

That's really interesting, as the majority of cases of "vaccine-preventable" disease occurs among the already vaccinated.

[TranquilMind]

Also, it would help me out a lot if someone could point out for me where this violates the constitution?

 

The first amendment permits the free exercise of religion without governmental restraint. The religious waiver obviously falls under this freedom, but then so does the personal belief waiver, which is the way the California bill is worded. Personal beliefs may or may not be religious in nature. It is not the government's purview to inquire into the nature of the personal belief.

 

Federal courts have already established that one not need follow any particular organized religious tradition in order to claim a religious belief under the first amendment. One need only have a sincerely held religious belief.

 

This bill's additional hurdle of requiring parents to find a doctor who will go against his profession's currently established requirements is almost insurmountable, and can certainly be a restraint upon the free exercise of religion clause. Many doctors today won't even SEE patients who have not had (or are in the process of having) the 69 required vaccines (my generation had 3 or 4, max). How likely is it for them to find a doctor who will agree to sign a document stating that he has fully apprised the parent of the dire consequences of not getting every single one of these vaccines. Right. Impossible.

 

This erosion of rights MUST stop.

[scrappyhappymama]

I am sorry, but I will not want my kids go to school, playground,movie theaters with kids not vaccined. When I lived in Indiana, there was an infant die of a disease because he was contracted something his brother got from another kid on the playground who did not vaccined. I am fine with parents choose not to vaccine, but I will like to have the right to know who are those kids so I also have a choose not to have my kids hanging out with those kids.

 

It is sad when any infant dies, I'm sorry to hear that. But the failure in this story is not that a child was not vaccinated, but rather that a child who was vaccinated, that is the brother, contracted the disease anyway. If vaccinations work so well, then vaccinated children would have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, this is not true.

 

So parents should have a choice, whether or not to inject their child with chemicals and various by-products that may or may not do what they are purported to do, and may or may not cause adverse reactions in their child.

 

I find in interesting that folks who are so adamant about not having their children around unvaccinated children are often themselves not completely up to date on all of their boosters. And of course, there are a LOT more vaccinations now than when all of us were children. So we'd have a lot of catching up to do.

[celticmom]

If you think the vaccines work so well and are safe, vaccinate your own kids. If you don't want to be exposed to unvaccinated or under-vaccinated people, don't ever leave your house. Because there are adults walking around all over the place whose childhood vaccine for pertussis, if they ever had it all, has worn off. Adults get pertussis and doctors don't diagnose it, because they don't want the trouble of reporting it. I know - it happened to me ! Keep your kids away from adults with hacking coughs. Don't worry about other people's vaccines. You do not have a personal right to know other people's confidential medical details.

 

The idea that the government gets to decide that foreign matter must be injected into the private, personal bodies of its citizens, or that it has some right to know and keep track of this information, is nauseating.

 

:iagree:

[celticmom]

It is sad when any infant dies, I'm sorry to hear that. But the failure in this story is not that a child was not vaccinated, but rather that a child who was vaccinated, that is the brother, contracted the disease anyway. If vaccinations work so well, then vaccinated children would have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, this is not true.

 

So parents should have a choice, whether or not to inject their child with chemicals and various by-products that may or may not do what they are purported to do, and may or may not cause adverse reactions in their child.

 

I find in interesting that folks who are so adamant about not having their children around unvaccinated children are often themselves not completely up to date on all of their boosters. And of course, there are a LOT more vaccinations now than when all of us were children. So we'd have a lot of catching up to do.

 

:iagree:

[Pink Fairy]

I get that not everyone can go to a doctor for his/her signature, but there are so many--so very, very many--people in California who don't have access to preventative medical care, that I don't believe the schools will keep the unimmunized/unwavered students out. My dh's school didn't.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Mamabegood

[TranquilMind]

If you think the vaccines work so well and are safe, vaccinate your own kids. If you don't want to be exposed to unvaccinated or under-vaccinated people, don't ever leave your house. Because there are adults walking around all over the place whose childhood vaccine for pertussis, if they ever had it all, has worn off. Adults get pertussis and doctors don't diagnose it, because they don't want the trouble of reporting it. I know - it happened to me ! Keep your kids away from adults with hacking coughs. Don't worry about other people's vaccines. You do not have a personal right to know other people's confidential medical details.

 

The idea that the government gets to decide that foreign matter must be injected into the private, personal bodies of its citizens, or that it has some right to know and keep track of this information, is nauseating.

 

You have heard that RFID chips have been approved for use in humans, right? Imagine what is coming down the pike...all for our "protection and convenience" of course. You didn't think they were going to be restricted to dogs, did you?

 

 

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Regulatory-Safety/FDA-clears-RFID-chip-for-humans

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The first amendment permits the free exercise of religion without governmental restraint. The religious waiver obviously falls under this freedom, but then so does the personal belief waiver, which is the way the California bill is worded. Personal beliefs may or may not be religious in nature. It is not the government's purview to inquire into the nature of the personal belief.

 

Federal courts have already established that one not need follow any particular organized religious tradition in order to claim a religious belief under the first amendment. One need only have a sincerely held religious belief.

 

This bill's additional hurdle of requiring parents to find a doctor who will go against his profession's currently established requirements is almost insurmountable, and can certainly be a restraint upon the free exercise of religion clause. Many doctors today won't even SEE patients who have not had (or are in the process of having) the 69 required vaccines (my generation had 3 or 4, max). How likely is it for them to find a doctor who will agree to sign a document stating that he has fully apprised the parent of the dire consequences of not getting every single one of these vaccines. Right. Impossible.

 

This erosion of rights MUST stop.

 

Eh, it only applies if enrolling a child in school, and the personal beliefs exemption IS intact - there is now simply a requirement that the parent provide proof they have been educated on the topic. Considering the ignorance often displayed by non-vaxxers online, I can see the logic behind the bill.

No issue with it here.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It is sad when any infant dies, I'm sorry to hear that. But the failure in this story is not that a child was not vaccinated, but rather that a child who was vaccinated, that is the brother, contracted the disease anyway. If vaccinations work so well, then vaccinated children would have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, this is not true.

 

That statement demonstrates a frightening lack of knowledge about vaccine theory on your part.

 

So parents should have a choice, whether or not to inject their child with chemicals and various by-products that may or may not do what they are purported to do, and may or may not cause adverse reactions in their child.

And they do. The bill does not change that. Edited August 30, 2012 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You have heard that RFID chips have been approved for use in humans, right? Imagine what is coming down the pike...all for our "protection and convenience" of course. You didn't think they were going to be restricted to dogs, did you?

 

 

http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Regulatory-Safety/FDA-clears-RFID-chip-for-humans

 

Yes , I do actually. I am fairly certain I will never be required to get an RFID chip. Anyone who actually worries about something like that has an overactive imagination.

If you can't see the potential benefits for some patients, then I am not sure what to say.

[NASDAQ]

The first amendment permits the free exercise of religion without governmental restraint. The religious waiver obviously falls under this freedom, but then so does the personal belief waiver, which is the way the California bill is worded. Personal beliefs may or may not be religious in nature. It is not the government's purview to inquire into the nature of the personal belief.

 

Federal courts have already established that one not need follow any particular organized religious tradition in order to claim a religious belief under the first amendment. One need only have a sincerely held religious belief.

 

This bill's additional hurdle of requiring parents to find a doctor who will go against his profession's currently established requirements is almost insurmountable, and can certainly be a restraint upon the free exercise of religion clause. Many doctors today won't even SEE patients who have not had (or are in the process of having) the 69 required vaccines (my generation had 3 or 4, max). How likely is it for them to find a doctor who will agree to sign a document stating that he has fully apprised the parent of the dire consequences of not getting every single one of these vaccines. Right. Impossible.

 

This erosion of rights MUST stop.

 

The bill requires that you find a doctor who will say that he educated you about certain aspects of vaccines. I have a lot of trouble believing that that is insurmountable. It doesn't require that you find a doctor who says that vaccines are useless. Surely you have doctors in your religious tradition, anyway.

 

And most anti-vaccinators are not doing it as a religious practice, nor is the state required to provide public schooling that is in complete keeping with every religion's preferences.

[NASDAQ]

" It is sad when any infant dies, I'm sorry to hear that. But the failure in this story is not that a child was not vaccinated, but rather that a child who was vaccinated, that is the brother, contracted the disease anyway. If vaccinations work so well, then vaccinated children would have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, this is not true. "

 

I don't think you understand how vaccinations work. This is exactly why they want people refusing vaccinations to be educated before they make such a decision.

[jessicalb]

This discriminates against the poor, and that should be enough to throw it in the garbage.

[scrappyhappymama]

That statement demonstrates a frightening lack of knowledge about vaccine theory on your part.

 

" It is sad when any infant dies, I'm sorry to hear that. But the failure in this story is not that a child was not vaccinated, but rather that a child who was vaccinated, that is the brother, contracted the disease anyway. If vaccinations work so well, then vaccinated children would have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, this is not true. "

 

I don't think you understand how vaccinations work. This is exactly why they want people refusing vaccinations to be educated before they make such a decision.

 

I suppose what you are both referring to and what you presume I am uneducated about is the concept of herd immunity. I do realize that had the unvaccinated child been vaccinated and therefore less likely to be sick at that point, then the vaccinated child, who's vaccination did not take or had worn off or was stored improperly and never effective to begin with, would have been less likely to have contracted the disease on that day from that child and to pass it on to the infant.

 

It's similar to the birth control pill. The pill is supposed to suppress ovulation and prevent conception. But just in case that doesn't work, the pill also creates a hostile environment in the uterus so that if a conception does occur, it probably won't implant. So the vaccine *should* work by provoking an immune response in a child to prevent them from contracting a given disease. But just in case it doesn't work as designed, then hopefully all the other children around them have been vaccinated and their vaccinations hopefully do work, so hopefully the first child will be avoid contracting the disease anyway.

 

I actually think a decent argument can be made for herd immunity and a societal obligation. BUT, I do not think that most people realize that the overriding benefit of vaccinating their child is NOT for their own child's health, but rather for the benefit of those around them.

 

Regardless, I still believe that a parent should have the right to decide what their own particular child should be injected with. A parent should be able to weigh out the potential societal good against the risks and benefits to their own child and have the right to make a decision to vaccinate or not.

[jennynd]

If you think the vaccines work so well and are safe, vaccinate your own kids. If you don't want to be exposed to unvaccinated or under-vaccinated people, don't ever leave your house.

 

Your logic is like to say it is drunk drivers right to drive under influence, if you don't want to get hit, stay home.

 

Well, the people who didn't vaccine are the one put the "majority " public in danger. the world doesn't circle around you. We all have public duty as part of society, And people who refuse to do so should be the one stay home.

You know, you can't have both ways, demanding to be part of the society and refuse to comply. We want your confidential right and your right hurts others' right of having a choice when you want your choice

 

Again, I do agree the parents have a choice what is the best for their Children, But I simply request I have the right to KNOW who is potentially hurting MY children

Edited August 30, 2012 by jennynd

[jennynd]

That's really interesting, as the majority of cases of "vaccine-preventable" disease occurs among the already vaccinated.

It is sad when any infant dies, I'm sorry to hear that. But the failure in this story is not that a child was not vaccinated, but rather that a child who was vaccinated, that is the brother, contracted the disease anyway. If vaccinations work so well, then vaccinated children would have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, this is not true.

 

The brother didn't get sick because he was vaccined. however the baby was too young, if I remeber right, the baby was only few months old, and didn't get vaccined just yet. Yes, Vaccine did worked.

Edited August 30, 2012 by jennynd