Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for the link. I wonder how this particular decision would come into play with vaccines for things like rotavirus, varicella, flu, etc. ? I don't see these types of vaccines that are compulsory in the same category as smallpox. I think it's an overstep of control and I will never agree that it's right to force people to get injections that they are against. That is my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psr13
I agree with you, and I also don't believe the Supreme Court is infallible. Face it, we all know that the justices on the Supreme Court will rule certain ways due to their political beliefs and interpretation of the Constitution. The court has been wrong numerous times.
I decided since these issues come up so often in vaccination debates to do a little bit of quick legal research about vaccination laws and their constitutionality.
The Jacobsen case that MissTerri asks about is the first case in which the Supreme Court dealt with this subject. There is another one though that was decided in 1922. The opinion was written by Justice Louis Brandeis who is a particularly famous justice. In Zucht v. King, 260 US 174 (1922) a school district required a certificate of vaccination before it would admit any child into the school. A child's family challenged this as being a taking of their liberty without due process of law. Justice Brandeis ruled just as the court ruled in the Jacobsen case, under its police powers which include the powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of a community the law was constitutional. Zucht does some things that I didn't see in Jacobsen. It doesn't refer to any specific immunization at all. From the broad language in Brandeis's opinion its clear that the ruling would apply to any required immunization. In fact, Brandeis suggests the important thing is that courts give discretion to school boards and other bodies to determine what is a required vaccination. The court believes that they can do this better and more easily than judges can.
One more point: There is an argument that I didn't see raised in this case that could be raised. One could argue that a regulation requiring vaccination is a violation of religious liberty under the First Amendment which gives us to the right of "free exercise of religion". People opposed vaccination would lose here too though. The court analyzes a "practice" that one undertakes due to religion and applies a balancing test. It balances the state's interest in prohibiting a religious practice against the person's interest in pursuing it. If the state's interest outweighs the individual interest, than a ban on the practice is constitutional. In this case, the state interest in preventing epidemic disease would outweigh the individual interest in avoiding a vaccination.
Also, someone tried to appeal from a compulsory vaccination statute on that basis and the Supreme Court denied certiorari which is a way of saying they refused to hear the appeal. Therefore, a lower court decision requiring vaccination was upheld.
You guys are entitled to an opinion that vaccination is unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has the opinion that counts and it has held that states may have compulsory vaccination laws.
Considering that most of the public can get vaccinated if they choose to and that vaccination rates are already high, I see no need to take away the exemptions that allow the small minority to opt out for philosophical or religious reasons. There is no emergency that warrants forcing that small minority into getting vaccinated in the name of "public health".
Small minority? In Colorado, it's 7%. In Alaska, the state with the highest exemption rate, it's ~ 9%. There are many pockets with much higher rates. You can't "hide in the herd" with rates like that.
Small minority? In Colorado, it's 7%. In Alaska, the state with the highest exemption rate, it's ~ 9%. There are many pockets with much higher rates. You can't "hide in the herd" with rates like that.
I decided since these issues come up so often in vaccination debates to do a little bit of quick legal research about vaccination laws and their constitutionality.
The Jacobsen case that MissTerri asks about is the first case in which the Supreme Court dealt with this subject. There is another one though that was decided in 1922. The opinion was written by Justice Louis Brandeis who is a particularly famous justice. In Zucht v. King, 260 US 174 (1922) a school district required a certificate of vaccination before it would admit any child into the school. A child's family challenged this as being a taking of their liberty without due process of law. Justice Brandeis ruled just as the court ruled in the Jacobsen case, under its police powers which include the powers to protect the health, safety, and welfare of a community the law was constitutional. Zucht does some things that I didn't see in Jacobsen. It doesn't refer to any specific immunization at all. From the broad language in Brandeis's opinion its clear that the ruling would apply to any required immunization. In fact, Brandeis suggests the important thing is that courts give discretion to school boards and other bodies to determine what is a required vaccination. The court believes that they can do this better and more easily than judges can.
One more point: There is an argument that I didn't see raised in this case that could be raised. One could argue that a regulation requiring vaccination is a violation of religious liberty under the First Amendment which gives us to the right of "free exercise of religion". People opposed vaccination would lose here too though. The court analyzes a "practice" that one undertakes due to religion and applies a balancing test. It balances the state's interest in prohibiting a religious practice against the person's interest in pursuing it. If the state's interest outweighs the individual interest, than a ban on the practice is constitutional. In this case, the state interest in preventing epidemic disease would outweigh the individual interest in avoiding a vaccination.
Also, someone tried to appeal from a compulsory vaccination statute on that basis and the Supreme Court denied certiorari which is a way of saying they refused to hear the appeal. Therefore, a lower court decision requiring vaccination was upheld.
You guys are entitled to an opinion that vaccination is unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has the opinion that counts and it has held that states may have compulsory vaccination laws.
Thanks for the info. I guess that is why the exemptions vary from state to state. My opinion still stands that we should not do away with exemptions in states that currently allow them.
Another misconception that comes from lack of knowledge of epidemiology. These are huge percentages, physiologically speaking. You need at least 90% coverage to maintain herd immunity. When you factor in the small percentage that can't be immunized, plus those too young to be immunized, you're getting into dangerous territory.
You choose not to believe people's personal accounts and the numerous reports there are rare, recognized adverse effectsto VAERS. That is your choice.
What else do we know about their health and their illness? Nothing. There is always more to the story.
Dehydration from stomach illness is pretty easy to manage and if and when signs point to it not being managed properly a trip to the hospital is warranted where IV fluids can be administered. The need for everyone to get the rotavirus vaccine in the US is overkill.
The science is not always crystal clear, unbiased and there is a lot that we don't know. The possible connection between autoimmune disorders and vaccines for example still needs a lot more research.
Your preference is to get vaccines to prevent certain illnesses that can possibly be prevented with vaccines. Others might prefer to get some vaccines and not others. Some may prefer to use other methods to care for one's health and to avoid the serious complications of illness. None of these methods will completely protect our children because the risk of illness is always present and the idea that we can prevent ever getting sick is not realistic or even rational.
Sometimes, sometimes not.
I choose to believe the scientists who have evaluated the VAERS reports and shown that very few of the claimed adverse events are actually due to vaccines. Anyone can report anything to VAERS. Someone can file a report saying they saw someone on TV who said her child had an adverse reaction to a vaccine. That does not mean the vaccine unequivocally was the cause of the adverse event. VAERS exists to look for patterns. If fifty people report different adverse events, the vaccine is probably not the cause. There are rare adverse effects of vaccines that are supported by scientific evidence and for which there is compensation available when they happen.
Some of the kids who died from influenza had underlying illnesses. Forty percent were otherwise healthy. I am sure you believe they would not have gotten so sick if they had been given the right vitamins or supplements or washed their hands better, but the fact is that they were healthy until they got the flu.
Personally, I believe no child should ever need to be hospitalized for an illness that can be prevented by a vaccine, even if the illness is not fatal.
For every connection between autoimmune diseases and vaccines that has been studied, none has been found to exist. After all the money that was wasted on disproving that vaccines cause autism, we do not need to waste more trying to make vaccines the scapegoat for every chronic illness known to medicine.
No one claims vaccines will prevent everyone from ever getting sick. That is no reason not to prevent what we can.
And, yes, when an illness occurs because a vaccine fails, it is commonly less severe. In fact, if someone who has been vaccinated is admitted to the hospital for influenza, that is a sentinel event. Infectious disease experts want to evaluate those cases, because it may be a sign the virus is changing if the infection was indeed due to one of the strains in the vaccine, not one that was not covered by the vaccine, and the vaccine was given at least two weeks before the onset of illness.
Another misconception that comes from lack of knowledge of epidemiology. These are huge percentages, physiologically speaking. You need at least 90% coverage to maintain herd immunity. When you factor in the small percentage that can't be immunized, plus those too young to be immunized, you're getting into dangerous territory.
I stand by my words, 7% is a small minority. I take it you'd like to see all exemptions eliminated? Is that what your goal is?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When they happen.
