377
378

A controversial bill that abolishes "personal belief exemptions" for vaccinations won overwhelming approval in the California Senate on Thursday, bolstering supporters' hopes that it will also clear the Assembly and be signed into law. (mercurynews.com)

NinjaDiscoJesus が 投稿

全 173 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a

[–]Crunkenstien 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (16子コメント)

"The only thing we can do is continue to educate our officials about the personal belief exemption," said Lisa Bakshi, a mother from Placer County. "The parents who do it now do it for very legitimate reasons. We don't do it because we are uninformed."

Nobody is saying these idiots are uninformed. It's clear that they are extremely misinformed.

[–]NotTheBomber 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (14子コメント)

True, every anti vaxxer I know is surprisingly good at backing up their bullshit with more shit from "natural" news sources and the occasional ultra libertarian site

[–]go1dfish -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I don't know many libertarians who are actually opposed to vaccines.

I think anti-vaxxer's are stupid, but that doesn't mean using threats to make them do the 'right thing' is an appropriate course of action.

[–]AgentGoldfish 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Look, I'm in favor of personal liberty as much as any good American. But anti-vaxxers are dangerous. They not being vaccinated is ruining herd immunity, which is what keeps everyone safe. The correct course of action is the force them to join the herd. We do this with taxes, you can't refuse to pay your taxes because you disagree. You shouldn't be able to break the protection other citizens have because you're an idiot. I'm glad CA is doing this and I hope more states follow.

[–]l3n 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't take that as being a threat. Vaccinations are still optional. All the bill does is attach public health to the decision. People have every right to engage in risky behavior, this bill just reduces the risk they pose to the rest of us.

[–]go1dfish -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are threatening their kids with a loss of access of education that they are already forced to pay for under threat of penalty.

[–]huehuelewis 65 ポイント66 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Gov. Jerry Brown has signaled that he supports the bill, but there's still a possibility he might urge legislators to include a religious exemption.

No, that was the whole point of this bill. You don't get to refuse vaccinations without a legitimate medical reason. Religious exemption just puts more innocent people at risk.

[–]kaisawheel 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A religious exemption would just be abused by people who don't want to vaccinate. It would not change the situation in CA at all. I certainly hope they aren't strong armed into adding that.

[–]GaboKopiBrown 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Technically there's a possibility Jerry Brown will eat a baby on live TV.

If there was any actual indication, they would say so.

Lazy journalism.

[–]potpie12 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (37子コメント)

How is it controversial or unconstitutional? The government is telling parents that they have the right to be stupid and endanger their own kids however that right ends at the school door and they are not allowed to infringe on the right of others health.

[–]kurisu7885 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry but your rights end where my rights begin.

If your religious freedom is infringing on my right to be healthy and not be sick, then we have an issue.

[–]becausefrog 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I just want to point out that this bill does not actually require everyone without medical exemption to vaccinate. It just means that if they choose not to, their children must be homeschooled. Many of these people homeschool their children already, so I'm not sure how much of a difference the bill will make.

[–]darwinn_69 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (27子コメント)

I'll have to admit, from a constitutional standpoint I have a bit of a problem with the government telling me I have to inject something into my body. I'm very much pro-vaccine, and think these anti-vaccers are idiots....I just don't like the legal precedent this sets.

[–]awesometographer 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (12子コメント)

they're not saying you have to do so. They're saying that you have to only if you want to use the government funded school system.

[–]darwinn_69 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (11子コメント)

But then you get punished under Truancy laws if you aren't rich enough to be able to homeschool.

[–]kikikol 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Maybe so, but by refusing vaccination and going to public school you endanger your child and others. The government is telling you: "If you want to play in my backyard, you have to follow the safety rules".

Like you, I have issues with a law forcing everybody to be unconditionally vaccinated. But the way I see it, the current proposal makes sense because:

  1. Most anti-vaxers are probably MISinformed rich moms. Those are lost and the current proposal won't help them because their child go to private schools.
  2. The rest of anti-vaxers, which is a still a significant number of Americans, is UNinformed moms. Those are usually poor and/or lazy internet lurkers who've seen a single article at some point linking vaccination to autism. Those will be helped by this proposal and I think that's what we should remember.

[–]go1dfish -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The government is telling you: "If you want to play in my backyard, you have to follow the safety rules

That's not the whole of it though. They are also forcing you to play in their yard (that you are also forced to pay for) unless you can afford to pay for your own after already paying for theirs.

[–]captainant 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you don't like it, you can also move out of the country

[–]go1dfish -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The US is the only country in the world to tax expatriates.

Even Snowden still had to file his taxes this year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/08/07/snowden-finds-new-home-fields-job-offers-but-will-he-pay-his-taxes/

[–]captainant 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then become a citizen of another nation. Nobody is forcing you to remain in the U.S. if you find its tax policy distasteful

[–]go1dfish -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is a tax on that to, and a $2,350 minimum fee in addition to a waiting list due to an increasing demand to renounce citizenship.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/02/11/thousands-renounce-u-s-citizenship-hitting-new-record-not-just-over-taxes/

But beyond that, I oppose forcing others to fund the murder of foreigners.

Becoming a foreigner does not seem to be a sound strategy for opposing that.

[–]potpie12 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That is still not the government forcing you besides when it comes to public health concerns the precedents have already been set health beats rights in the eyes of the court, this does nothing to change that.

[–]darwinn_69 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Public health precedents have usually applied after you've been infected or exposed. For example, I was required by law to take pills when I was 16 because I came back with a positive PPD test.

[–]Silverkarn 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You had tuberculosis when you were 16?

[–]darwinn_69 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I got exposed to the virus which prompts a positive test. The virus can lay dormant for years, and if you take these pill it it will stay dormant forever. Had to get a few chest x-rays(city paid for them), but really no big deal.

[–]loggic 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I am inclined to agree with you on that one. I have been vaccinated, plan on vaccinating any kids I may end up having, and think the anti-vaccine movement is nutty. But, part of me thinks it is something that could be abused pretty terribly.

[–]tallerthanunicorngod 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The legal precedent for this particular case was set long ago buddy.

You dont get to enroll a kid that is a health risk in a public school.

[–]Wrong_on_Internet 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Vaccination requirements have been recognized as constitutional since the very beginning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts (1905)

[–]newnrthnhorizon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

They're telling you that you cannot send your children to public school if they're not vaccinated. Just like If you don't have a driver's license, you cannot drive a car on public roads.

They're not telling you that you must vaccinate your children just like they're not telling you that you must get a driver's license.

[–]darwinn_69 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But what if you are too poor to home school and avoid Truancy laws?

This only effects the poor, not the rich white bitches who are causing all this crap.

[–]newnrthnhorizon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then they should get their kids vaccinated :)

Honestly, I have no idea.

[–]go1dfish -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are not mandated to travel or use roads at all by government.

You are mandated by government to receive an education when you are younger than a certain age.

Truancy laws or this, choose one; not both.

[–]newnrthnhorizon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I can't argue with that.

Bottom line is that one side isn't going to get their way. I'd much rather the pro-vaccination side gets their way than the other way around.

[–]Synchrostar12176 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

for all the anti-vaxxers out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzxr9FeZf1g

[–]dooj88 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

i still find it hilarious that anti-vaxxers are even a thing.

[–]dtmbcorp -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How many mandated vaccines is enough? Will you take any vaccine the government mandates for you?

After all we've seen with the illegal wars, spying, torture, anthrax vaccine, etc. it really amazes me that people are still so trusting of US government institutions.

[–]cm18 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So, while we're at it can we repeal the laws that make vaccine manufactures "immune" to lawsuits? I mean, really, this is the whole reason we have lots of people fighting the vaccination programs. They don't trust the big corporations or the government agencies that are "in bed" with each other. Right now, these companies can put any crap in the vaccines they want without repercussions. And if you think drug companies are not corrupt, go research Bayer hemophiliac scandal of the 80's.

[–]katana0182 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No. FDA approval is quite thorough and is enough of a safeguard. People who really have been injured by vaccines can go to special vaccine court to receive fair compensation for their provable, proven and documented losses. We don't need lawyers suing vaccine companies which drive up the price of vaccines for poor people.

[–]cm18 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Vaccine court is a joke. There's no real reporting or accountability. Much of what goes on there is swept under the rug. The vaccine makers need to be held accountable. If that means more expensive vaccines because of the risk, then so be it. Anyhow, the costs are "socialized" and subsidized, so why should the average consumer care?

Again. It's a trust issue. Government and corporations get in bed with each other and the rest of us get screwed. To believe a vaccine court is going to be sufficient protection, is foolishness.

[–]blackmonday75 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well-informed, Marin county, silicon valley types are now adopting Ebola positive children and sending them to our public schools. They have now claimed personal-belief exemption and there is nothing we can do about it.

Well-informed person quoted as saying, "you can't tell me what to do with my child. My rights are more important than your child. You can't tell me what to do."

In other news, same people from above story are against vaccinating their children from communicable diseases like polio. Mother quoted as saying, "it's not my fault, she just wasn't strong enough. Shit, FDR got polio and he became president. There's still hope."

Again in other news, same people from above community have new personal beliefs that we are inhabited by the souls of aliens blown up from a volcano. They also survive off of their own smugness.