Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2012, 08:40 PM
 
Location: The Other California
4,254 posts, read 5,581,486 times
Reputation: 1552

Advertisements

With respect to AB 2109 - proposed legislation that would greatly increase the difficulty of obtaining a personal beliefs waiver to opt out of vaccinations - the following was received in my in my in-box this afternoon:

-----------------------------

AB 2109 is an attack upon parental rights and an attack on religious and personal conscience liberties.

It proposes a requirement that, in effect, will burden and restrict the current right of a parent to exempt their child from any or all required vaccinations for school enrollment. The law already allows for non-vaccinated students to be restricted from attending a school while there is an outbreak of particular communicable diseases.

Parental rights attacked:

AB 2109 forces parents into a paid contractual relationship with a health care provider they might not otherwise utilize for their children's health care, which is a violation of basic parental rights.

AB 2109 forces health care practitioners into a gate-keeping role that creates a hurdle for parents desiring to freely exercise their parental rights to direct the health care of their children.

AB 2109 forces parents to attempt to arrange an office visit with a healthcare provider hoping they will obtain the required signature of the doctor. There is no requirement that the specified health care providers either make the appointment, charge an affordable rate, or give the parent their signed statement required by this bill.

Personal Conscience and Religious freedom attacked:

While a visit with and signature from a physician is appropriate for the allowed “medical exemption,” it is not appropriate for the “personal beliefs exemption.” It is not right for the state to put physicians in a role where they can attempt to influence the personal beliefs or the religious beliefs of the parent.

Impractical & Unworkable for many parents and therefore selectively discriminatory by its very nature:

It may be difficult to find a health care provider who will be willing to do this in California, based on their busy and already overwhelming schedules. Some doctors may decline these appointments simply because they don’t want to give people an excuse to not get vaccinations or don’t want to handle “non-treatment” related issues.

AB 2109 ignores the fact that some parents who have a personal belief that any required vaccination is not appropriate for their child may not have a regular doctor for their child and family, and from whom they could readily get the required documentation. Many doctor’s offices are not taking new patients. This has already been the experience of parents in Washington where they passed essentially the same law last year.

Health care practitioners cannot fully educate a parent regarding the risks and benefits of each required vaccination and the health risks of the related diseases in 20 minutes or less. A study in Pediatrics Magazine showed 80% of parents reported “well” visits lasted less than 20 minutes.

One-third of parents reported visits of less than 10 minutes.

There is no guarantee that just because you pay money to a provider you will get a signature. In fact, you probably won’t get one. Doctors will not want to sign these for fear of liability.

Creates financial hardship for many families:

AB 2109 would impose a burden on families both financially and time wise. It requires that parents who believe that a particular vaccination or all vaccinations are not in the best interest of their child make and pay for an appointment with an appropriate health care practitioner merely to obtain their signature on a document. This document declares that the practitioner provided the required information. This information is available for free on the web or elsewhere.

AB 2109 will negatively impact many poor or disabled parents by forcing them to make an unnecessary and maybe difficult trip to the doctor’s office. Many have jobs that do not have the flexibility to take time off merely for an information appointment. Insurance will likely not cover such an appointment, and therefore must be paid by the parent.

This requirement is clearly an obstructive roadblock for parents being able to get an exemption for their child.

Physicians—financial conflict of interest:

A parent is forced to pay for information from a health care provider and then hope they can get the required signature. Reports from the state of Washington, which implemented this requirement last year, are that doctors are pressuring parents to join their practice. This is a coercive way of throwing more business toward the classes of health care providers specified in the bill while excluding other sources of the same information.

Physicians—philosophical beliefs conflict of interest:

Health care practitioners should not have anything to do with a parent’s personal beliefs exemption.

AB 2109 gives the physician the power to refuse to give an appointment. Even if he sees the parent, he is not required to sign the statement that is required for the “personal beliefs exemption.”

This bill requires parents who are exercising their rights under the law to pay money to be harassed by someone who disagrees with their views.

Physician-Patient relationship negatively affected:

AB 2109 will likely have a very negative impact on some doctor-patient relationships. This bill requires a health care practitioner to sign a form that acknowledges a child will be exempt from a vaccination. This will be repugnant to some health care practitioners who will not sign the required statement and will result in the development of an unfortunate adversarial relationship between some patients and their doctors. Families may even lose their doctor over this, as has happened under Washington’s similar law implemented last year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2012, 08:52 PM
 
7,150 posts, read 10,837,174 times
Reputation: 3806
The pope is like the Energizer Bunny ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2012, 08:57 PM
 
11,715 posts, read 40,314,839 times
Reputation: 7585
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim View Post
the following was received in my in my in-box this afternoon:
From mailinglist@homeschoolwacko.org to our eyes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2012, 10:19 PM
 
Location: anywhere but Seattle
1,082 posts, read 2,543,192 times
Reputation: 999
Anything that annoys WesternPilgrim enough to start yet another thread is a good thing therefore I fully support and endorse AB 2109.

Anybody else in favor of AB 2109?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2012, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,106,052 times
Reputation: 7373
I kind of side with the folks who are concerned that unvaccinated kids can result in rather deadly diseases being spread in the classroom.

However...

About 30 years ago our middle kid had the required DPT shot needed to enroll in school (this was in Virginia, and I'm not sure if it is still required today). Anyhow, he had an awful reaction to the shot, howling at the top of his lungs for many hours and obviously in great discomfort.

In testing, we found out it was the "P" part of the shot that caused him problems. As a result, we declined the follow up shot and replaced it with a "DT" vaccine instead of DPT. We had some initial problems with the school, but eventually were able to obtain a waiver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2012, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,567 posts, read 12,762,532 times
Reputation: 9398
Keep it simple. Your kids are your property. They come from your body and are a product of that body...hence like in the abortion debate- One should have the right to toss their kids over a bridge and into the river rather than submit to being treated like cattle getting their shots at the ranch...If you have the "choice" and are pro-choice and have that state sanctioned right to abort a child- you should have that right to abort a child that is 10 years old also....see what I am getting at? They say that you have the choice to abort because it is YOUR body..and the fetus is product of that body hence your property.


So what business is it that state has in keeping kids alive or dead..If a disease kills your kid it should be your business not the states. This is an extreme way of looking at this subject- but the point is the medical profession is not in authority over you and products of your body- nor is the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2012, 10:46 PM
 
7,150 posts, read 10,837,174 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
Keep it simple. Your kids are your property. They come from your body and are a product of that body...hence like in the abortion debate- One should have the right to toss their kids over a bridge and into the river rather than submit to being treated like cattle getting their shots at the ranch...If you have the "choice" and are pro-choice and have that state sanctioned right to abort a child- you should have that right to abort a child that is 10 years old also....see what I am getting at? They say that you have the choice to abort because it is YOUR body..and the fetus is product of that body hence your property.


So what business is it that state has in keeping kids alive or dead..If a disease kills your kid it should be your business not the states. This is an extreme way of looking at this subject- but the point is the medical profession is not in authority over you and products of your body- nor is the state.
Ummm, except that you completely missed the point that an unvaccinated person, child or adult, can be a carrier of disease that threatens other unyet vaccinated, namely the very young. Thus, in that respect, society can be entirely concerned with your offspring as a danger to others, as well as being in danger themselves.

It is a tricky issue. Do not assume I favor mandatory vaccinations. I am very leary of modern medical science. It is marvelous stuff. It is dangerously over-reaching at the same time. And very often quite unproven in spite of trials and testing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 01:09 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
578 posts, read 1,289,647 times
Reputation: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
About 30 years ago our middle kid had the required DPT shot needed to enroll in school (this was in Virginia, and I'm not sure if it is still required today). Anyhow, he had an awful reaction to the shot, howling at the top of his lungs for many hours and obviously in great discomfort.
Vaccines have really changed over the past 30 and 50 years ... polio vaccines were an issue at one point with the oral vaccines. We now have vaccines for rotavirus and chicken pox that only were developed in the 90's!

Pertussis is really important to have, especially every 10 years. Our protection wanes for pertussis and there are some major outbreaks going on right now because people are refusing to vaccinate their children and not keeping updated. Washington is having a pertussis epidemic and is asking for help from the CDC.

Parents should have to jump through hoops to refuse vaccines for their kids. Abortion is one thing. Vaccination is another and affects a much, much, much wider range of people.

We need to keep up the herd immunity to protect those who are at risk and can't be vaccinated. Babies die from pertussis and other vaccine-preventable infections. That one child isn't the only one effected by not being vaccinated -- so is everyone that they contact, and that those people contact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 01:32 AM
 
Location: Police State
1,472 posts, read 2,399,703 times
Reputation: 1232
Oh great, more of this nonsense.

I thought that this anti-vaccination stuff was done by now, but by golly some people think they should have the right to leave their kids exposed to fatal diseases and to spread them to other people's children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2012, 04:58 AM
 
1,320 posts, read 2,684,040 times
Reputation: 1323
WesternPilgrim, if you think California is such a terrible place in so many ways, then why do you live there? Just curious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top