Slashdot Mirror


Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

mpicpp sends the latest news on California legislation that would eliminate exemptions for vaccinating school children. A bill that would require nearly all children in California to be vaccinated by eliminating "personal belief" exemptions advanced through the State Legislature on Wednesday, though it still has several hurdles to clear. If approved, California would become one of only three states that require all parents to vaccinate their children as a condition of going to school, unless there is a medical reason not to do so. Under the bill, introduced after a measles outbreak that began at Disneyland, parents who refuse vaccines for philosophical or religious reasons would have to educate their children at home. The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools. Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling. This Wednesday, however, the bill passed that committee after its authors tweaked it, adding amendments that would expand the definition of home schooling to allow multiple families to join together to teach their children or participate in independent study programs run by public school systems.

60 of 616 comments (clear)

  1. It's my choice to kill my kid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How dare you tell me that I have to actually take care of my kid! It's my kid, and my choice not to feed it!

    1. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by taustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The issue isn't whether or not you risk your kid's life, it's whether or not you risk the lives of other people's kids, and others who can't be vaccinated, and whether or not the taxpayer is going to foot the bill when you kid's sick.

    2. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's total BS. There's always some small portion of the population who can't handle the vaccine (like the egg-allergic guy above), or for whom the vaccine just plain doesn't work. They do just fine in school. Being allergic to eggs is not a major problem for a schoolkid, and doesn't make them more susceptible to other diseases. None of this was a problem in years past, thanks to herd immunity: with ~97% of the kids immunized, the disease just never popped up in civilized society, and everything was great. We almost forgot about measles until recently because of the effectiveness of these immunizations, even though not 100% of kids were immunized. But now, with all the idiotic anti-vaxxers, measles is back.

    3. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by taustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, that's not really the way it is. There are many reasons why someone can't be vaccinated. Being immunosuppressed is only one of them. Egg allergies are rather more common, and school represents little danger to a kid who is allergic to eggs.

      Plus, the number of kids who can't safely be vaccinated is small enough to not break herd immunity. The number of kids whose parents are idiots is much, much larger. As the recent measles (and whooping cough) outbreaks have shown.

    4. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Hussman32 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The point is to have enough people inoculated such that herd immunity takes effect. There will always be a few people that can't take the vaccine. As long as they are few, the rest are safe.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    5. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just a reminder about constitution and the rights that provide for citizens, the catch here, ALL CITIZENS, including the wee ones. Children are not pets and most certainly are not the possessions of parents. Children are citizens with the full right of protection of all other citizens (just not all of the responsibilities), including protection from those people recognised as the guardians of those children. So yeah, just like all other citizens expect to be protected from the bad decisions of others so children are entitled to that same right.

      If you personally want to decide whether some one else gets an inoculation or not based upon beliefs, get a pet and not a child. As it stands the whole community decides for the benefit of not only the community but the individuals within that community who gets inoculated, when those individuals have the right of protection but not the mature responsibility to decide for themselves.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      multiple families to join together to teach their [unvaccinated] children or participate in independent study programs

      a.k.a. "agar dishes for childhood diseases".

    7. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by twitnutttt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bravo, California! This state led the way in recognizing the second hand harm of cigarette smoke. Hope they do the same with antivaxer idiots.

      ...last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools.

      Cry me a river, you morons. Your stupidity in unfairly infringing on the rights of others to not die of completely preventable diseases.

    8. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      #4 is why the anti-vaccine movement was able to grow. The anti-vaxxers said "You don't really need the vaccines. Just wash your hands real well or take HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY and you'll never get whooping cough," Sure enough, they didn't get whooping cough, but the reason wasn't washing hands (though that is important) or homeopathic remedies (which isn't good for anything). It was because the anti-vaxxers were few enough that they were protected by herd immunity. Even though they weren't getting the vaccines, they were still enjoying vaccines' protection.

      But then the anti-vaxxer ranks grew and herd immunity began to break down. Now we're starting to see outbreaks of diseases that, by all rights, should be lining up behind smallpox for inclusion in the "wiped out" club.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you not read my post? It isn't just anti-vaxxers, there's other people who are susceptible to these diseases: people who can't take the vaccine (allergic or immune-compromised), and also the unlucky 1-2% who *did* get the vaccine, and it simply didn't work for them.

      Also, we're talking about kids here; the anti-vaxxers' kids don't deserve to catch diseases. If it were just anti-vax parents catching diseases themselves because of their stupid choice to not vaccinate, then yeah, who cares? Hoist by their own petard and all that. But this isn't the case; it's innocent people, mainly kids (both theirs and other peoples'), who are suffering because of these idiots.

    10. Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! by dwillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because not all can be vaccinated. How many times does this need to be explained. Your choice not to vaccinate put's others at risk. It is not just a choice for your family, but for the immuno-compromised and the very young in our society as well. We all rely on the herd immunity and if you compromise it your choice then affects others and your rights end when they start harming others.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    11. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by djdarko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Parents of kids in group 1 are making smart choices and doing their best to participate in a social society. They deserve to be protected, despite their body's immunity-compromised state. Parents of kids in Group 2 have made a selfish, uneducated choice that puts society at risk and that must be dis-incentivized. This proposed law is an excellent way to better align the interests of the parent with the interests of the child.

    12. Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't be obtuse. Overwhelming majority of vaccines are well out of patent protection date and as such exceptionally cheap. As a result, instead of "big pharma", they're typically produced by copy drug makers around the world, both large and small.

  2. Seems to be OK all around then by dissy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools

    For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value. This action is unfair for the purpose of argument.

    That said... I fail to see what exactly their problem or complaint actually is.

    This small group of people are arguing for the legal right to unfairly engage in germ warfare while attempting to murder other school children and even some adults. The argument is this is perfectly acceptable and should be a protected right.

    So with that, these people clearly have NO problems with unfair choices being forced on everyone else, as that is the legal right they are demanding.

    So why complain when they get their wish, and we "unfairly" shut their children out of school?

    If they have no moral or even legal issues with (their) unfair choices being forced on people (us), why do they complain why the court states there is no moral or legal issues with (our) unfair choices being forced on people (them)?

    It has already been established that unfairly infecting other children at school is not only acceptable but should be a legal right, so clearly it is also both acceptable and should be a legal right to unfairly kick their children out of school, exactly as these parents are marching at the capitol to demand.

    Obviously the correct answer is that the hypocrisy is strong in these people - it just still somehow amazes me to this day such people don't realize that hypocrites are exactly what they are being.

    1. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about the rights of the children? Is it okay for patents to force their views on their children and stop them being vaccinated? Parents can't deny their children an education, so why should they be able to deny them this protection?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That being said, why should parents be allowed to force anything on their children? We should come up with a long list of everything that it is okay for your children to know and learn and you are required as a parent to teach them only those things. Every year all the scientists and politicians can get together and determine what our children can learn and believe and what they cannot. And any parents that "force" beliefs or ideas on their children different from the approved ones can be locked up and the children sent to better families.

    3. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That said... I fail to see what exactly their problem or complaint actually is.

      In this last week an anti-vaxxer group in Australia put out a post on their FB page likening forced vaccination to rape (penetration without consent). They even illustrated it with a photo of a guy standing over a women in a menacing pose and holding his hand over her mouth.

      So at this point I have no clue what some of them are thinking, and wouldn't even know how to communicate with them. (Although this particular message was so off that even a lot of the anti-vaxxers who were members of that group were decrying how bad it was.)

      But what is even scarier is that I saw on CNN yesterday that even ISIS is keeping up vaccinations in the territory that it controls.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't be vaccinated, so I need to rely on herd immunity instead. So at what point does your right to avoid vaccinations end, and my right to avoid the unvaccinated begin?

    5. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools

      For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value...

      Okay, setting aside that claim...the law isn't actually saying that you have to vaccinate your children (personally I think it should, but it doesn't). It merely says you have to vaccinate your kids in order to allow them to expose other children in public school. If you want to homeschool your children, you don't have to vaccinate. You're kids also aren't allowed to bring a gun to public school, but if you want your kids to have access to a gun while they are learning, then again, you can homeschool them. Same fucking thing.

    6. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Vaccination without consent is an assault. There is NO OTHER way to describe it.

      Except that it is not happening. If you don't want your kids vaccinated, then that is your choice. Have at it. You just can't send them to school where other kids are endangered by your choice.

    7. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by PraiseBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And what happens when we actually prove that Autism disorder is caused by bad vaccines?

      Did you pay any attention to the news this week? The study that took years and years, involving almost 100,000 kids, conclusively showing that there is no link? Even if there is a link, its statistically so tiny as to be irrelevant.

      And yes, the state can and does take away children from parents if the state doesn't like how they are being raised. It happens daily. Parenthood isn't some right that supercedes other individuals safety.

      The fact is, FORCING vaccines doesn't protect ANYONE from ANYTHING.

      I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point, since I didn't catch polio, or measles, or a wide variety of other diseases, and that is almost entirely due to the state forcing vaccinations on other people.

      In fact, the Measles outbreak at Disneyland had almost nothing to do with the no-vaccine advocates

      So you are saying there is no connection between a low vaccination rate, and outbreaks of disease? You can make that claim, but the CDC, the AMA, and most reputable doctors, strongly disagree with that notion. Not just in general, but in this specific outbreak where a study found that the low vaccination rate was responsible.

    8. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like vaccinations, but i love Liberty more.

      Do you agree with the philosophy that my freedom to swing my fists ends at your nose?

      How about my freedom to spread dangerous germs?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fine. Pay for a private school which accepts unvaccinated children or home school them.

    10. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by hondo77 · · Score: 3, Funny

      My right to refuse supersedes your right to live. Welcome to living in a Republic.

      The Republic has decided otherwise. Welcome to the real world.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    11. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by EmeraldBot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My right to refuse supersedes your right to live. Welcome to living in a Republic.

      Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice, how life comes first.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    12. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why should parents be allowed to force anything on their children?

      Answering as a parent: Because young kids are really bad at making long term choices. If I let my 2nd grader decide all the foods he ate, he would live on a diet of pizza, cookies, McDonald's chicken nuggets*, and macaroni and cheese. Perhaps he would occasionally eat a piece of fruit. Instead, I prompt him to eat veggies that he declares gross before even trying them - but which he'll often love after eating them. If it were solely up to him, my 2nd grader would grow up with horrible eating habits. It's my job as a parent to force good eating habits on him in the near-term, teach him why good eating habits are important, so in the long term - when he's old enough to make these decisions himself - he'll eat healthy.

      * We have McDonald's on an extremely rare basis. One meal from there a month is a lot for us. I have no problem with the occasional fast food meal, but it definitely shouldn't be a regular part of your diet.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    13. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, you don't have the right to spread germs around willy-nilly because you don't feel like taking basic precautions. Look up the tale of Typhoid Mary. Despite being a carrier of Typhoid, she refused to take basic steps to stop spreading the disease (since she didn't agree with those steps). After people died, she was locked up so she couldn't infect anyone else.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    14. Re:Seems to be OK all around then by Trogre · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I am pro-vax.

      It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that current MMR, DTaP, etc, vaccines are harmless except to those with specific medical conditions, and are effective against the diseases they target.

      Current vaccines.

      I think, however, that giving the government power to mandate vaccincations in this manner could lead to serious problems in future.

      While today's vaccines are fine, there is the possibility that one day a vaccination will be produced that will not be desirable by the people. The NSA for example has proven itself to be insidious and virtually untouchable. At some point in the future they could introduce tracking nano-devices or a behaviour modifying cocktail to some otherwise innocuous vaccine, and the populace would have no legal standing to object. Another possibility is a product being introduced that may not have gone through sufficient testing due to some failure in due process. While the government launches inquiries and debates matters, people who refuse it are subsequently refused healthcare and die.

      Vaccines for other conditions exist that have raised legitimate safety concerns: look up the current HPV vaccine for example.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  3. Darwin by proxy by timholman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This Wednesday, however, the bill passed that committee after its authors tweaked it, adding amendments that would expand the definition of home schooling to allow multiple families to join together to teach their children or participate in independent study programs run by public school systems.

    I hate to say it, but maybe this is for the best. Unfortunately, what may be needed to kill the anti-vaxxer mindset once and for all is for a whole classroom of unvaccinated children to come down with measles or polio or smallpox or whooping cough, and for several of them to die.

    Horrible? Yes, but the parents who have bought into this insanity are endangering everyone, not just their own children. Some of these people are quite literally proclaiming that vaccines have never worked, and that it is only improvements in hygiene that have resulted in the elimination of most deadly childhood diseases. A good cold dash of reality is the only cure. It is just a damned shame that some innocent kids will have to pay the price.

    1. Re:Darwin by proxy by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If an unvaccinated child dies, can the parent who has denied their child a vaccination be prosecuted for child endangerment?

      Maybe that's what it'll take to end this virus of ignorance.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    2. Re:Darwin by proxy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jesus christ. How can supposedly technical people be (a) so anti science, (b) so gorssly and intentionally uninformed and (c) so fucking stupid.

      The information is out there in spades. If you're uninformed at this point you're being willfully ignorant.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. Legislate instead of educate by Gary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate that we have to legislate instead of educate people about vaccinations. Pretty sad that people listen more to Jenny McCarthy than they do medical doctors. I suppose given that, this legislation is a necessary evil.

  5. I'm a bit conflicted by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm firmly in the "what the hell is wrong with you anti-vaxxers?!" camp, and almost any of us here could rattle off a laundry list of the ways that these parents are just plain wrong, but this bill would more or less enforce a quarantine for at-risk children, depriving them of access to a state-provided resource (education) that they are entitled to, for reasons that are unrelated to the resource being offered (i.e. the parents don't have a problem with public schooling). I'm tempted to suggest that the "fair" thing to do would be to give the family a refund on the school district's share of their taxes if they've been cut off from that resource, but I also don't like the idea of giving tax breaks for engaging in idiocy.

    As I said, I'm conflicted. I agree that steps need to be taken to disincentivize anti-vaxxing. I like that some doctors are refusing to accept patients who aren't vaccinated, but I'd like to see the deterrents get into the public space somewhere. I'm just not convinced that this is the way to do it.

    1. Re: I'm a bit conflicted by rkcth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally I don't think it goes far enough. Not vaccinating your child is child abuse and attempted murder. I think if a child gets a preventable disease like this for any reason other than the doctor not allowing the vaccination due to health concerns, the print should be charged with child abuse for their own children as well as any child who contracts the disease from this child.

    2. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The evidence for measles vaccines, the only one I actually looked into, sucks. Where is the blinded RCT used to initially establish it's long-term effectiveness (or any)? Where is the paper where they account for the >90% disagreement between clinician diagnosis and lab test? What was the adoption rate of these lab tests over time? Why is it so easily accepted that the different lab tests only agree in the case of null results (which can be due to sample degradation)? Where is the paper where they account for the reduction in popularity of measles parties (if people stop spreading a disease on purpose the incidence rate should drop by some large magnitude...)?

      I don't claim the measles vaccines do not work, only that anyone claiming to know is lying to themselves. The evidence is extremely tenuous. So can I have a "scientific exemption"? Someone with academic training needs to write a proper review of all this measles vaccine stuff, here are some places to start:

      “A likely reason for this is that the case may have been misdiagnosed as a non-specific viral illness. Measles has become relatively uncommon in Singapore with two decades of widespread measles vaccination, and especially after the second dose policy was implemented in 1998. Many primary care doctors may not even see a single case of measles in a year. This makes diagnosis more difficult.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829

      “This was not a blind study, since the investigators knew which children had received measles vaccine. It seems probable that the occurrence of so much ‘measles-like’ illness in the vaccinated children was a reflexion of the difficulty in making a firm diagnosis of measles in the African child at one visit.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134550/

      “As only approximately 7% of the clinically-diagnosed cases of measles reported locally turned out to be measles by laboratory testing, there is a need for laboratory confirmation of measles to avoid misidentification of cases and improve disease surveillance.(2)”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829

      “Before the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%–98% of children by age 18 years [1–4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.

      http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full

      "It is evident from Table IV that many children in all three groups were unwell and that the proportion was greatest in the live-vaccine group (61 %), less in the killed/live-vaccine group (54%), and least in the unvaccinated group (38%)...
      Table VI shows the cases of measles reported by the parents and those seen and diagnosed by the doctor. Of the total cases reported the doctor saw about 60%, and, of these, confirmed the parents' diagnosis in 93 % in the control group, 64% in the killed/live-vaccine group, and 70% in the live vaccine group."

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1843609/

      "Measles
      Evidence from cohort studies
      Effectiveness against measles was investigated in three cohort studies (Marin 2006; Marolla 1998; Ong 2007)...
      There was a lack of adequate description of exposure (vaccine content and schedules) in all cohort studies. Another recurring problem was the failure of any study to provide descriptions of all outcomes monitored. A lack of clarity in reporting and systematic bias made comparability across studies and quantitative synthesis of data impossible."

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803

      " Indeed, an average of only 100 cases of measles are confirmed annually [32], despite the f

    3. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Australia has just instituted a policy that if you child is unvaxinated you lose any and all child support and wellfare. Dependent on your income this can be as much as $15k per child per year. This has happened as a response to whooping cough and measles outbreaks because of stupid anti-vax people.

    4. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Medical exemptions are standard practice, and I believe most of us assumed that they weren't even on the table for discussion since they would continue being standard practice. That's why it's so important to get anti-vaxxing out of the picture, since without a well-established herd immunity, people in your shoes are exactly the ones who end up getting hurt unfairly. No one is suggesting we force people who are allergic to the vaccines to take them. We're talking about forcing those who can take the vaccine so that we can all be safe.

    5. Re:I'm a bit conflicted by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't questioning the efficacy of the vaccine a bit moot at this point? It's well-established that the rate of measles occurrences has declined by more than 99% in the US since the prevaccine era. No doubt, there are several contributing factors (e.g. decrease in measles parties, as you said), but there's no way to account for that change absent the consideration of the vaccine (e.g. measles was endemic before measles parties were a thing, so it likely isn't that measles parties are gone). Suggesting the link is "tenuous" seems rather disingenuous. It's possible the vaccine may not be effective to the degree people claim it's effective, but suggesting there's even a possibility that it's not effective at all is rather absurd.

  6. Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Vaccines are great. I won't dispute that. My children are vaccinated, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific vaccines (Because who really needs Varicella vaccination if you were already infected as a child? It's also hardly ever fatal for that matter).

    It is up to parents to decide what is right for their own child with regard to medical decisions. Medical decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their child in this regard, because medical decisions live with you forever.

    So if a parent doesn't want to have their child vaccinated, that's a-okay with me. My children are vaccinated, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect them. I can't protect them from everything and I don't expect other parents to protect my children either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.

    Giving up freedom because of fear is not the answer. Mandating the "correct" decision is often wrong. Better instead to push education and appropriate information rather than to force others to make the decision you want them to.

    1. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You may find your black and white ideological extremism comforting, but in the real world, where real people live, collisions of liberties means there are no absolutes. In general terms, your freedom of action ends at the tip of my nose, so your liberties are not absolute.

      Children have the same fundamental liberties as their parents, but are not deemed to have the emotional or cognitive maturity to exercise those liberties responsibly. The child's guardians is thus given considerable legal and moral authority over the child, but that authority is not absolute, because to make it absolute would essentially render the child's liberties null and void. And thus the courts can force a child to have life-saving procedure like a blood transfusion despite the protestation's of the child's guardian.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop signs are great. I won't dispute that. I stop at stop signs, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific stop signs (Because who really needs that stop sign in a construction area where there aren't any other cars? Crashes at stop signs are also hardly ever fatal for that matter)
      It is up to drivers to decide what is right for their own car with regard to stop signs. Driving decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their car in this regard, because bad driving decisions live with you forever.
      So if a driver doesn't want to have to stop at stop signs, that's a-okay with me. I stop at stop signs, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect myself. I can't protect everyone from everything and I don't expect other drivers to protect me either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    3. Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is that Stop Signs have a legal basis and if you fail to stop at them, you can be fined.

      Yes, the notion of a stop sign is enshrined into law. This proposed law would do the same for vaccines. That's not what I call a difference.

      You want the license to drive, then you agree to play by the rules that keeps everyone safer.

      Yep. And if you want your children to go to school, you agree to play by the rules that keep everyone safer.

  7. ...and adults too. by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm one of those who is allergic to eggs and have to be very careful about vaccines, so you may be putting me at danger too.
    Many vaccines have egg protein in them, and so do flu shots. Over the years I have managed to get most vaccines, but it's hard. On paper there are egg-free vaccines and it's easy to google up an article announcing the exciting new development of an egg-free vaccine for xxx. But in real life they are expensive, have short shelf lives, a very limited market, and nobody keeps records about where I might find some. Which means they're pretty much not available outside of a major metropolis, and even then it takes luck and a lot of phone calls.

    --
    Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    1. Re:...and adults too. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The law eliminates religious and philosophical exemptions, not medical exemptions. Unless your allergy to eggs is a philosophical stance, you'll be fine.

    2. Re:...and adults too. by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I know that. The point is that people like me won't be protected by herd immunity, which is why we need the law. So I can go outside without being worried that I'll die because someone's little snowflake couldn't tolerate a needle.

      --
      Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    3. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The law eliminates religious and philosophical exemptions, not medical exemptions. Unless your allergy to eggs is a philosophical stance, you'll be fine.

      I think you missed his point. There are people who cannot be vaccinated for various reasons, like allergies, immune system disorders, etc. These people therefore are at risk of becoming ill, but only if there is a transmission vector. If everyone who can be is immunized, those who cannot be are highly unlikely to come into contact with someone who can transmit a disease to them.

    4. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You live in this society, you fucking bet it's your job. Either do it or get the fuck out.

    5. Re:...and adults too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually it is - that's the whole point of herd immunity and was always the intention of vaccination programs sorry you might not like it, just like you don't like paying taxes.

    6. Re:...and adults too. by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, yes it is. There isn't much where I'll agree with claims of "people should sacrifice for the common good", but contagious diseases are damn clear. Plus, the sacrifice is minimal and the benefit huge.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:...and adults too. by twitnutttt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but the part you're missing is that it is not my job to provide you with herd immunity.

      And that's why, under the law, you and your spawn are free to continue your miserable existences in your own parallel world, ostracized and isolated from the rest of us.

    8. Re:...and adults too. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it really isn't. You have a warped sense of right and wrong if you feel it is justified to force vaccinations on others for your own health benefit.

      It's part of the social contract. If someone feels that it isn't their civic duty to take the proper vaccinations required and demanded of them for their part in protecting society, Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.

      Such rights only exist under the civilized society, AND if you choose to live in the civilized society, then you MUST take every obligation that comes with that choice --- that choice is only available if you also are to pay your taxes, and respect the well-being of other people, for example: by not killing them, or robbing from them, BUT, also, taking the required steps to see that you are not making them sick or putting their lives at risk through your own negligence.

      Failure to receive the minimal recommended and required vaccinations is negligence.

      It's no different than creating a humongous unreasonable fire hazard in your backyard, and claiming you have no duty to prevent it from catching your neighbor's house on fire; that just aint so..

      Such people who would refuse vaccination for no provable and rationally justifiable medical reason --- can and should then be put into quarantine or deported / removed from civilized areas, with steps taken to ensure they stay out until they agree to vaccination.

    9. Re:...and adults too. by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, there are plenty of things you must do as well, from the history of conscription, to jury duty, to paying taxes. Once it was common that you were required to bring your gun to church on Sunday just in case something needed killing. Your required to get the shots for your pets in most places. None of this stuff is crazy (well, bringing back the draft today would be, but only because technology has made it pointless, even harmful).

      We also, of course have crazy stuff like being required to buy health insurance and in some places upgrade existing structures to meet new codes. Not everything is a good tradeoff for liberty, but many things are.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re: ...and adults too. by djdarko · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not what the proposed law requires. Are you purposefully creating a straw-man here, or do you genuinely not understand? No one will be forced to be vaccinated. If you want to participate in our social education system, then you must vaccinate or have a legitimate, non-kooky reason for it. If you electively choose not to vaccinate, then fine, but you must find some other way to educate your kids that doesn't risk the health of others. No forced vaccinations, here.

    11. Re:...and adults too. by dywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Know how I know you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
      Besides the obviously ignorant use of the word "commie" that is.

      California, that liberal hellhole, only had a budget mess because after a shortfall became apparent (caued by the recession), the minority GOP in the state legislature filibustered any tax increases. The only things they allowed through were spending cuts. But as we've seen repeatedly in places like Kansas and Europe, spending cuts to safety net programs in the middle of a recession only make matters WORSE not better.

      By the way, their budget is balanced now, thanks largely to finally tax increases through after kicking out a bunch of republicans from the legislature (which itself only occurred because redistricting was finally taken away from the legislature and put in the hands of an independent citizen commission who undid a lot of gerrymandering.).

      As for water:
      1) they can't control the weather. So when they only get 5% of the usual snowpack this year, even lower than last years 20% (1inch of water, vs 4inches in 2014), there's not much they can do.
      2) the water rights are controlled by farm interests which rural conservative folks and big businesses, who hold a lot of sway in the legislature....not exactly your "commie".

      Oh wait, you did know California is actually a purple state right? And its rural populace, as well as a fair number of its tech moguls, would make the folks in Texas blush with how conservative they are? No, you probably didn't know that.

      After all, you think they cant do anything right, even though they have the largest economy in the country as the same time as having one of the best safety nets for low income and minority citizens in the nation, and buoyed their populace through the recession better than most states. Heck, you probably don't even know that one reason for Texas's success is it -also- has decent (as far as Red controlled Purple states go) safety nets for folks.

      Bugger off loon.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re:...and adults too. by Shortguy881 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree parents should have the final say, however, unvaccinated children should not be allowed in public schools. Parents should also be held liable if their unvaccinated kid (by choice) is involved in an outbreak that harms others. Yes, the decision is yours but you also need to accept the consequences.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
  8. "forced" by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.

    Or even worse, that they found that they liked it. The problem with making something a condition of participating in a government institution is the risk that significant numbers will discover they do fine without it.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  9. Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Funny

    > they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.

    With the piss poor job schools have been doing lately, that might not be a bad thing for parents to bond and spend more time with their chilldren's investment success for their future.

    Nah, it's easier to pass the job off to someone else who doesn't give a crap about your child's future and is only doing it for the money.

    For the money?!?
    WUT?

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  10. Re:Which vaccines? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    HPV Vaccine? Just what is going on at these schools anyway...

    The same thing that has always gone on. Kids have sex, and the HPV vaccine means that they are protected from a pretty nasty cancer.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Re:Easy fix by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, because no-one every dies from measels. The person who dies every 4 minutes from measels doesn't count.

    Source:
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre...
    145,700 deaths from measels in 2013, one every 3 minutes and 45 seconds.

    in 1980, before mass vaccinations it was killing 2.6 million per year

  12. Re:Bad Example, Maybe by tbannist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have to be very careful with Penn and Teller, they have a strong libertarian bent and they seem to frequently fail when researching issues that involve their politics. I wouldn't trust them on issues like second hand smoke that they are likely to view as "government interference". It tends to make them derp out and present a weak one-sided case as if there were no valid counter-arguments. Personally, I stopped watching "Bullshit" after a few too many political shows where they left me disappointed with their half-assed, one-sided, "facts".

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical