Vaccination bill passes California Senate Health Committee

Post Reply New Topic

If you look at Supreme Court rulings, they will often make an exception in cases where there is a legitimate public interest in restricting individual liberties. Read up on it. You can learn a lot.

Though I disagree with the method, the federal and state governments changed their concepts of liberty-based travel (see the Magna Carta) in the 1920s and 1930s to one of permission-based travel. Roads were often privately built and owned, so no government regulated them let alone the motor vehicles traveling them. I wouldn't necessarily want a return to a nation with mismatched and unsafe roads, and no regulations for those drive on them. But, I must say that being forced to acquire a license if I choose to drive is far less intrusive (constitutionally and morally) than being forced to allow my body to be injected with a foreign (and in certain cases, dangerous) substances.

Yes, and I described them (declared martial law, declared disasters and declared health emergencies). If you believe that amending the Constitution for the United States or America is difficult, try restricting constitutional rights without one of those extraordinary measures.


Thanks! I have read, studied and even practiced law for 41 years. How about you?

And, with that insult, I will bow out of this ... um, discussion.

Last edited by AspieUtah on 09 Apr 2015, 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This reminds me of something that happened here. A little neighborhood had a private road leading to it instead of a public one and the county had no jurisdiction and guess what? This little creek overflowed it's banks, spilled over the privately owned lane and washed out the bridge. The people who lived there were stranded for days, couldn't get out of the neighborhood which had a few homes, it was rural. They were on the news complaining no one would fix the bridge because it was on private property and it would cost them something like $250,000 to do it themselves and they didn't have the money to put into it so you see the problem with private roads?

Uh, no. SCOTUS and other courts apply it to far more situations than that. See ya.

Also, to clarify, I am talking about where the government requires it--or needs a medical exemption--in order to attend a public setting, such as a school or college.

whats next mandortiry Chemical castration injections, after all if all men don't get horny they'll less likely to rape women

what about smoking?
what about drugs to regress violent thoughts in all humans.
what about banning driving and cars, they kill so many people.
so many things people do effect and can affect others.
clearly marshal law is needed, everyone needs to be restricted to their homes and never allowed to leave. except the government agents enforcing the law.

and when people resist? going round them up in camps to force them to get shots? and when they resist with force?
if the government cares so much why do they allow people with super deadly diseases to fly into the nation at will?
simply banning them would be in the best interest of public safty but wait that would hurt some small african nation's economy so f**k public safety.

know who wins with mandated vaccinations. the drug companies, willing to bet they been paying a lot of money to get laws like this passed.

Did you know my state's going to pass a law, if it hasn't been passed already, that bans adults from smoking in a vehicle that has kids so yes prohibitive laws exist pertaining to kids and autos. They can't drive one, for instance, they have to travel in a safety seat if under a certain height and weight. Wouldn't surprise me if they passed a law banning people from leaving their kids in cars unattended. Surprised that one hasn't been passed. It's only because it involves adults that it hasn't been.


When the state wants to pass a law protecting kids they do it. That's life. You actually have far more liberties than your kids but you take them for granted because you want to see the cup half empty instead of half full.

This is a good thing; i'm all for personal freedom of choice, but yours ends where mine starts.

vaccination is commonly agreed (in all western countries except for the US) to be safe and beneficial.
however, for a multitude of reasons, immunity for some of the included vaccines might not trigger; now i (or worse, my child) will be at risk for that disease; of course, this is assuming there are no medical reasons to not vaccinate, but the argument is unchanged for those situations.
not normally a problem, since a 95% vaccination rate (barring a few medical exceptions) means i can expect 90% of the population to be immune (the others who, for some reason, also didn't respond), meaning the chance of me or my child coming into contact with someone carrying said disease (which means that person must be non-immune AND infected) is negligable (10% even has a chance of carrying it, but they all have this small chance of meeting anyone infectious, compound chances); the disease simply can't 'find' a second susceptable person before it's treated.
if people are allowed to opt-out for personal reasons, these numbers change, and at some point, the amount of susceptable people gets to an amount where diseases can spread again, putting me at risk.

i will not allow myself, or my child, to put others at risk in this way, regardless of personal risk, you have your civil duty to not endanger other people, if it is within your power to do so: Asimovs' 1st and 3rd laws apply to humans as well as machines (although the 2nd one doesn't apply to humans )

It looks like Jimmy Kimmel had some fun with the issue last month, drawing histrionic responses from anti-vaxxers:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/ ... te-speech/

One of them said Kimmel was making fun of autistic children, which was not true at all.

izzeme,

Thanks for your post. I had forgotten to mention what you brought regarding the fact that vaccination fails in a small fraction of cases.

Actually many states back in the early 1900s until the early 1930s had laws that mandated force sterilization of people born with disabilities and those who committed severe crimes until the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down.
This set the legal precedent, which has lead to the banning of most kinds of drugs that procedures that forcibly alter people.

Though the courts and prosecutors can offer you rehab and medication in exchange for jail time.

Smoking have been challenged and won, thus smoking is a right, though states and cities have the right to ban smoking in public places due to the health costs of second hand smoke.

Cars and driving don't actually kill people, it's people who are being irresponsible that causes the trouble (and some times the weather). Driving is normally safe as long as people are being responsible.

Essentially most things when used responsible, including alcohol have no major consequences on people and society.

The diseases that are prevented by vaccines have taken tens of millions of lives over the 20th century alone, and disabled many more. The costs in human terms was huge, which lead to the invention of vaccines. The monetary terms was also huge, which in turn greatly impacted national security, the economy, an the standard of living.

People getting sick is the single biggest cost to the U.S. economy and to people's standard of living.

This is why healthcare reform is such a big deal, with people and families being regularly bankrupted by health issues.

Also nearly every major drug company in the world has ended the research and development into vaccines due to it not being profitable enough.

xenocity,

Actually, in one case, SCOTUS upheld it, scarily. Those eugenics laws actually remained in effect in at least one state until the 1980s (when Oregon, I believe, was the last to repeal its eugenics law).

works both ways. you'r rights end where min begin so you don't have the right to force your ideas on me. funny how you people only see it as it goes to protect you. we have to ban guns there by violating my rights for yoeurs, now its vaccinating me by force to again protect YOUR RIGHTS. what the f**k about other peoples rights!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! the left is so f*****g hypocrites and you guys only care about yourself but lie and say ifs for public safety to feel better about it. you're have to kill me before anyone stabs me with a needle without my permission.

not even responding to the rest you guys ares so stuck up in your own ass to even care about others. everything is so self centered her all about you and your kids over everybody else.

guess what my mom got the shots and she still got sick. doctor was like well shots don't cover all the types of possible flues. diseases just mutate to by pass vaccines. so tire of the left wanting to control and force everyone to do as they say. :'( wish you people would focus on your own life and leave the rest of us alone.

If someone would have offered me Chicken Pox vaccine now and i never had the illness, I would take it to avoid the itching and yucky sores. Needles don't scare me like they did. If someone would have given me a choice as a kid, I would have said a big fat NO because I hated needles with a burning passion and was deathly scared of them back then so I would have said NO to escape getting poked with a needle. I would have been one of the unvaccinated and that might not have been in my best interest, if it were left to me back then.

Actually, it is the anti-vaxxers who are selfish. They often say things like they don't care about other children, such as those with medical conditions that prevent them from being vaccinated, and they're quite willing to increase the risk of such children catching one of those horrible diseases.

Also, the police are not going to come knocking down your door, snatching your child, and injecting them with needles. Simply in order to attend certain public settings, such as a school or college, they would require either vaccination or a medical exemption. Elementary schools, especially, if children aren't vaccinated would have such diseases running all over the place, due to so many children being packed together and elementary school children often not being very hygienic.

It is known that some elementary schools, typically those in wealthy areas, have relatively low levels of vaccination.