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.

17 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 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.

  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 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?

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
  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.

  4. 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"
  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. 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.
  7. 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.

  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.