I know I always bring all the things back to the military, but it's my frame of reference so forgive me.
My stepdad is a Quaker pacifist. He still had to register for selective service at 18 so he wouldn't be a criminal. If there had been a draft when he was of age, he would have had to undergo a lot of interviewing and spend a lot of time proving that he was a for real pacifist, a real Quaker, etc. They'd have chaplains interview him and offer opinions, etc. I feel like religious exemptions for vaccines should be that rigorous. Available, but extremely hard to get. You've got to prove the fuck out of that belief. So the Catholic example upthread would get a big denied, you're going to Vietnam stamp. Except it would be denied, injection straightaway.
While this would be an improvement over the current state of affairs, I still don't think this is OK. Religion is personal and is not inherited - it's not race or ethnicity. You should not get to force your religious beliefs upon your kid, especially when it may harm their health.
How would a 1 year old pass these types of interviews?
That would be the point I would think. Since a 1 yr old can't have a strongly held belief you are still observing the freedom of religion but in reality ain't nobody getting an exemption from at least the first round of vaccines.
Post by Velar Fricative on Feb 5, 2015 16:49:33 GMT -5
Now that I think more about it, I honestly don't believe the courts will side with the government here because of religious rights. As much as I like to think matters of public health should trump religious rights...the Second Amendment still exists even though gun violence is what it is.
This is just my layman self talking. I need more information from our resident lawyers to figure out if I'm making a decent parallel or just being pessimistic for no real reason.
Now that I think more about it, I honestly don't believe the courts will side with the government here because of religious rights. As much as I like to think matters of public health should trump religious rights...the Second Amendment still exists even though gun violence is what it is.
This is just my layman self talking. I need more information from our resident lawyers to figure out if I'm making a decent parallel or just being pessimistic for no real reason.
I think it's a toss-up.
The free exercise of religion is a fundamental right, so laws restricting it are subject to strict scrutiny. For a law to survive strict scrutiny, there must be a compelling government interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Here, the compelling interest of public health should be a relatively easy argument to make. I can see both sides to the narrowly tailored argument, though.
Now that I think more about it, I honestly don't believe the courts will side with the government here because of religious rights. As much as I like to think matters of public health should trump religious rights...the Second Amendment still exists even though gun violence is what it is.
This is just my layman self talking. I need more information from our resident lawyers to figure out if I'm making a decent parallel or just being pessimistic for no real reason.
I think it's a toss-up.
The free exercise of religion is a fundamental right, so laws restricting it are subject to strict scrutiny. For a law to survive strict scrutiny, there must be a compelling government interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Here, the compelling interest of public health should be a relatively easy argument to make. I can see both sides to the narrowly tailored argument, though.
I agree. I think it probably would be constitution to require vaccinations to attend public school. That seems narrowly tailored enough.
Whether you have to be vaccinated just to live in a state though? Ehhhhhhh....no. The more I think about it, the more I think it probably would not be constitutional. Even if it were constitutional on its face, it would not be constitutional as applied, because I don't see how it would be enforced without violating the constitution.
Practically speaking, how does it get done?
As pro-vax as I am, when it comes down to it, I can't really support that level of government power.
Does anyone know what religions have beliefs against vaccinations and why? I'm curious how widespread the religious exemption really is.
The one lady here who keeps trying to sue anyone and everyone to get her kid to attend NYC public schools claims she doesn't vaccinate due to her religious beliefs. She's Catholic. Guess what? So's everyone else here and everyone else gets their kids vaccinated (even for Catholic school!).
My one guess would be Jehovah's Witnesses but there were several in my school when I was younger so I don't actually know if they were exempt or not. Probably not.
She is an idiot. Catholics don't have a problem with vaccines.
I'm definitely pro-vaccination, but I'm not really comfortable with it being a state mandate. My first concern is that it will it either cause people to avoid seeking medical attention or not send their kid to school. Secondly, I'm just not comfortable with the government deciding I have to put something in my body, period.
I'm down for requiring it for only public schools, certain jobs, really any place that receives government funding, and I'm ok with incentivizing the hell out of it, but I am really uncomfortable with the state deciding that someone has to be injected with something. It feels so very wrong.
The free exercise of religion is a fundamental right, so laws restricting it are subject to strict scrutiny. For a law to survive strict scrutiny, there must be a compelling government interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Here, the compelling interest of public health should be a relatively easy argument to make. I can see both sides to the narrowly tailored argument, though.
I agree. I think it probably would be constitution to require vaccinations to attend public school. That seems narrowly tailored enough.
What about any schools that receive state funding?
Post by open24hours on Feb 5, 2015 19:40:59 GMT -5
If non-vaxed kids were not allowed to attend public school, I wonder how special ed eligible students and their right to a free and appropriate public education would fit in.
I work with special ed kids with moderate to severe disabilities, and the number of those kids who are un-vaxed is alarming, at least to me. I know un-vaxed kids with autism whose parents won't get them vaccinated because they believe vaccines cause autism. I guess the parents think vaccines will make it worse.
Anyway, even if those parents could afford private schools, there are not enough private schools that are able to offer an appropriate educational program for the most severe special needs kids. I imagine parents will be up in arms if vaccines are required to attend public school.
The free exercise of religion is a fundamental right, so laws restricting it are subject to strict scrutiny. For a law to survive strict scrutiny, there must be a compelling government interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Here, the compelling interest of public health should be a relatively easy argument to make. I can see both sides to the narrowly tailored argument, though.
I agree. I think it probably would be constitution to require vaccinations to attend public school. That seems narrowly tailored enough.
Whether you have to be vaccinated just to live in a state though? Ehhhhhhh....no. The more I think about it, the more I think it probably would not be constitutional. Even if it were constitutional on its face, it would not be constitutional as applied, because I don't see how it would be enforced without violating the constitution.
Practically speaking, how does it get done?
As pro-vax as I am, when it comes down to it, I can't really support that level of government power.
These laws are always about schools though. They are not about living in the state. Just about attendance in the state's schools and in order to do so you have to be properly vaccinated unless you meet an exception and in CA the exceptions are very easy to meet.
Also, an interesting quote from Prince v. Massachusetts , 1944:
"The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation…The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death..."
I'm definitely pro-vaccination, but I'm not really comfortable with it being a state mandate. My first concern is that it will it either cause people to avoid seeking medical attention or not send their kid to school. Secondly, I'm just not comfortable with the government deciding I have to put something in my body, period.
I'm down for requiring it for only public schools, certain jobs, really any place that receives government funding, and I'm ok with incentivizing the hell out of it, but I am really uncomfortable with the state deciding that someone has to be injected with something. It feels so very wrong.
This is probably flammable but IDGAF about this. In fact, if you don't want to vaccinate your kid I probably prefer that you not send them to school.
I don't really keep track of who has vaccinations and who doesn't at our school (Public Health dept does it) but I do know the new girl in 1 who registered in grade 1 doesn't have any, for 'religious reasons', which I am fairly certain means nothing here.
Christian Scientists maybe? Don't they (generally) believe in no medicine?
I think I read they actually believe in vaccines.
They don't. No drugs, including alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine.
Although members aren't excommunicated, chastised, or judged for being vaccinated or seeking medical assistance. My mother was fourth generation class taught Christian Scientist, and I grew up in CS, attended a CS boarding school, and went to CS summer camp, and no one I ever knew was vaccinated. Until I left home at 17, I'd never taken so much as an aspirin.
They don't. No drugs, including alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine.
Although members aren't excommunicated, chastised, or judged for being vaccinated or seeking medical assistance. My mother was fourth generation class taught Christian Scientist, and I grew up in CS, attended a CS boarding school, and went to CS summer camp, and no one I ever knew was vaccinated. Until I left home at 17, I'd never taken so much as an aspirin.
See the article I posted about where the spokesperson for the church recently said otherwise.
They don't. No drugs, including alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine.
Although members aren't excommunicated, chastised, or judged for being vaccinated or seeking medical assistance. My mother was fourth generation class taught Christian Scientist, and I grew up in CS, attended a CS boarding school, and went to CS summer camp, and no one I ever knew was vaccinated. Until I left home at 17, I'd never taken so much as an aspirin.
See the article I posted about where the spokesperson for the church recently said otherwise.
According to the CS website, he's the spokesperson for the CS church of Northern CA, not the Mother Church in Boston. I'll research further and ask some people I know who still practice, but as far as I know, that is not the view of the church as a whole.
I agree. I think it probably would be constitution to require vaccinations to attend public school. That seems narrowly tailored enough.
Whether you have to be vaccinated just to live in a state though? Ehhhhhhh....no. The more I think about it, the more I think it probably would not be constitutional. Even if it were constitutional on its face, it would not be constitutional as applied, because I don't see how it would be enforced without violating the constitution.
Practically speaking, how does it get done?
As pro-vax as I am, when it comes down to it, I can't really support that level of government power.
These laws are always about schools though. They are not about living in the state. Just about attendance in the state's schools and in order to do so you have to be properly vaccinated unless you meet an exception and in CA the exceptions are very easy to meet.
From the CS website: It’s up to each person who practices Christian Science to choose the form of health care he or she wants. Many Christian Scientists decide to pray first about every challenge—including health issues—and find it effective. Many health care professionals today are recognizing options outside of conventional medicine. Christian Scientists recognize and respect the interests of medical professionals and don't oppose them. We all care about the preventive and curative aspects of health care. Like all systems of healing, the track record for Christian Science isn’t perfect. But, over 80,000 Christian Science healings have been published throughout the past 140 years, including severe cases.
I'm definitely pro-vaccination, but I'm not really comfortable with it being a state mandate. My first concern is that it will it either cause people to avoid seeking medical attention or not send their kid to school. Secondly, I'm just not comfortable with the government deciding I have to put something in my body, period.
I'm down for requiring it for only public schools, certain jobs, really any place that receives government funding, and I'm ok with incentivizing the hell out of it, but I am really uncomfortable with the state deciding that someone has to be injected with something. It feels so very wrong.
This is probably flammable but IDGAF about this. In fact, if you don't want to vaccinate your kid I probably prefer that you not send them to school.
I don't really keep track of who has vaccinations and who doesn't at our school (Public Health dept does it) but I do know the new girl in 1 who registered in grade 1 doesn't have any, for 'religious reasons', which I am fairly certain means nothing here.
Yeah, I'm going to flame this, but lucky for you, I think my opinion is not a popular one around here.
I actually have a lot of concerns with laws that keep them out of public schools. I think it's probably constitutional, but that doesn't mean I agree with them as a matter of policy.
I've said this here before, but nothing good ever comes of isolating fringe, paranoid groups that thrive on martyrdom. You have dangerous people who put conspiracy theories before reason, and before their families' health and safety. I think any policy has to take into account what happens to these people's children when they are forced into isolation and homeschooling by irrational, paranoid, conspiracy theorists who fear the government, and should take into account the potential consequences of driving these kinds of people to the brink.
Children being raised in isolation by these people are at least as vulnerable as children with medical conditions that prevent them from being vaccinated. Measles outbreaks may be scary and dangerous, but there are consequences to the alternative. Are those consequences worse? I don't know. Nobody really knows.
So I don't know what the solution is, but not giving a flying fuck about what happens to the children of sociopaths when forced out of schools isn't one of them.
This is probably flammable but IDGAF about this. In fact, if you don't want to vaccinate your kid I probably prefer that you not send them to school.
I don't really keep track of who has vaccinations and who doesn't at our school (Public Health dept does it) but I do know the new girl in 1 who registered in grade 1 doesn't have any, for 'religious reasons', which I am fairly certain means nothing here.
Yeah, I'm going to flame this, but lucky for you, I think my opinion is not a popular one around here.
I actually have a lot of concerns with laws that keep them out of public schools. I think it's probably constitutional, but that doesn't mean I agree with them as a matter of policy.
I've said this here before, but nothing good ever comes of isolating fringe, paranoid groups that thrive on martyrdom. You have dangerous people who put conspiracy theories before reason, and before their families' health and safety. I think any policy has to take into account what happens to these people's children when they are forced into isolation and homeschooling by irrational, paranoid, conspiracy theorists who fear the government, and should take into account the potential consequences of driving these kinds of people to the brink.
Children being raised in isolation by these people are at least as vulnerable as children with medical conditions that prevent them from being vaccinated. Measles outbreaks may be scary and dangerous, but there are consequences to the alternative. Are those consequences worse? I don't know. Nobody really knows.
So I don't know what the solution is, but not giving a flying fuck about what happens to the children of sociopaths when forced out of schools isn't one of them.
Here we only force them out of schools when there is an outbreak.
I guess my larger issue is that these are adults making shitty choices for their kids but choices that affect my kids. I can choose to keep my kids out of houses that have guns, because I feel like that is safer. But I can't choose who they go to school with and when some schools here are starting to have immunization rates that hover at 50%, I wonder if their right to not vaccinate trumps my child's right to not be exposed to deadly diseases.
All that being said, I do acknowledge that all your points are valid, I feel bad that their parents are nuts and maybe they shouldn't be further punished for that.
The complicated part is that you can't just punish the people making the antisocial decisions. I hate anti-vaxx parents. They're bad citizens. They're bad people. They just are. They're self centred and have opted out of the social contract that we should all try to keep each other safe. But then you bring their relatively innocent children into it and it gets complicated by trying to not breed a suicide bombing crazy sect.
Still, at this point, I think there needs to be a much higher bar than "I don't want to" on vaccines in public schools.
This is probably flammable but IDGAF about this. In fact, if you don't want to vaccinate your kid I probably prefer that you not send them to school.
I don't really keep track of who has vaccinations and who doesn't at our school (Public Health dept does it) but I do know the new girl in 1 who registered in grade 1 doesn't have any, for 'religious reasons', which I am fairly certain means nothing here.
Yeah, I'm going to flame this, but lucky for you, I think my opinion is not a popular one around here.
I actually have a lot of concerns with laws that keep them out of public schools. I think it's probably constitutional, but that doesn't mean I agree with them as a matter of policy.
I've said this here before, but nothing good ever comes of isolating fringe, paranoid groups that thrive on martyrdom. You have dangerous people who put conspiracy theories before reason, and before their families' health and safety. I think any policy has to take into account what happens to these people's children when they are forced into isolation and homeschooling by irrational, paranoid, conspiracy theorists who fear the government, and should take into account the potential consequences of driving these kinds of people to the brink.
Children being raised in isolation by these people are at least as vulnerable as children with medical conditions that prevent them from being vaccinated. Measles outbreaks may be scary and dangerous, but there are consequences to the alternative. Are those consequences worse? I don't know. Nobody really knows.
So I don't know what the solution is, but not giving a flying fuck about what happens to the children of sociopaths when forced out of schools isn't one of them.
I can't believe I'm about defend anti vaxxers but this is not really an accurate picture of them. They are not sociopaths or fringe, for the most part. These are people who love their kids and are otherwise quite normal, every day people. And that's actually what is so terrifying about them. They are your friends, your neighbors, your collegues, and the parents in your play group. They are like you in every-other way but they happen to be playing a game of Russian roulette and you will never really know about it.
So disallowing a kid from school because he is not vaccinated, unless he has a medical condition, is not like sentencing him to a life in an episode of American Horror Story. It's more like I don't know...an episode of Portlandia meets Modern Family? Anyway that's the drawback. The benefit is that you prevent outbreaks of deadly diseases. I'm okay with this. But ultimately I think more people will choose to vaccinate rather than not send their kids to school.
The one lady here who keeps trying to sue anyone and everyone to get her kid to attend NYC public schools claims she doesn't vaccinate due to her religious beliefs. She's Catholic. Guess what? So's everyone else here and everyone else gets their kids vaccinated (even for Catholic school!).
My one guess would be Jehovah's Witnesses but there were several in my school when I was younger so I don't actually know if they were exempt or not. Probably not.
She is an idiot. Catholics don't have a problem with vaccines.
My kids go to catholic school. The policy is "no shots; no school". In the beginning of the school year she combs through all the kids records. The second page of my daughters vaccine record was somehow left out of her packet. I had to go get her and she could not return her to school until I had the actual document in my hand. No nonsense.
Can someone answer this? Does the MMR vaccine contain cells from aborted fetuses? I know that's a dumb question, but I don't know the answer and am afraid to google that.
Can someone answer this? Does the MMR vaccine contain cells from aborted fetuses? I know that's a dumb question, but I don't know the answer and am afraid to google that.
No. The virus's genetic material used in the vaccine has to be grown inside another human cell and then extracted for use in the vaccine. The original host cells were taken from aborted fetuses in the 1960s. Since then, the cells have been propagated by reproducing them over and over.
So the host cells in which the virus is grown are descended from cells that were harvested from aborted fetuses, but vaccine producers are not continually using newly aborted fetuses for this purpose, and the host cells are not in the final vaccine product.
Post by mandapanda18 on Feb 5, 2015 23:33:24 GMT -5
My chiropractor has waived vaccination and has no religious related motivation. He had to sign a waiver, listen to a dr say vaccines are important (5 minute talk) and they sent him on his way. It was Way to simple and his kid is now mixed in with others at school :/
They're bad citizens. They're bad people. They just are. They're self centred and have opted out of the social contract that we should all try to keep each other safe.
So I've just been told that people have an issue with MMR because it was created from aborted fetuses originally. Even though it isn't any more, apparently the fact that that's how it was created is enough of a reason for the ultra pro-life to be against it. So instead, it's totes okay to risk the life of hundreds of living, breathing babies. *headdesk*
Yeah, I'm going to flame this, but lucky for you, I think my opinion is not a popular one around here.
I actually have a lot of concerns with laws that keep them out of public schools. I think it's probably constitutional, but that doesn't mean I agree with them as a matter of policy.
I've said this here before, but nothing good ever comes of isolating fringe, paranoid groups that thrive on martyrdom. You have dangerous people who put conspiracy theories before reason, and before their families' health and safety. I think any policy has to take into account what happens to these people's children when they are forced into isolation and homeschooling by irrational, paranoid, conspiracy theorists who fear the government, and should take into account the potential consequences of driving these kinds of people to the brink.
Children being raised in isolation by these people are at least as vulnerable as children with medical conditions that prevent them from being vaccinated. Measles outbreaks may be scary and dangerous, but there are consequences to the alternative. Are those consequences worse? I don't know. Nobody really knows.
So I don't know what the solution is, but not giving a flying fuck about what happens to the children of sociopaths when forced out of schools isn't one of them.
I can't believe I'm about defend anti vaxxers but this is not really an accurate picture of them. They are not sociopaths or fringe, for the most part. These are people who love their kids and are otherwise quite normal, every day people. And that's actually what is so terrifying about them. They are your friends, your neighbors, your collegues, and the parents in your play group. They are like you in every-other way but they happen to be playing a game of Russian roulette and you will never really know about it.
So disallowing a kid from school because he is not vaccinated, unless he has a medical condition, is not like sentencing him to a life in an episode of American Horror Story. It's more like I don't know...an episode of Portlandia meets Modern Family? Anyway that's the drawback. The benefit is that you prevent outbreaks of deadly diseases. I'm okay with this. But ultimately I think more people will choose to vaccinate rather than not send their kids to school.
Yeah, I am probably painting them all with a broad brush. I you are right that many would just get over it. Or do the whole delayed staging thing and just muddle through until the kids get everything and can go to regular school.
But I think many, particularly the anti-government, tinfoil hat, and/or religious types are at risk of just bugging out. While it also might be less concerning in urban or suburban areas because it will be harder for people to fall off the grid, it's going to be easier for those people to organize and figure out some arrangements to make opting out easier and fall into their own world.
Ultimately I think it's just a complicated issue because you can't punish the kids for their parents horrendous choices, and as @tokenhoser points out, create terrorist breeding grounds.
I'd feel better if there was some compromise that would keep the kids in mainstream society.
So I've just been told that people have an issue with MMR because it was created from aborted fetuses originally. Even though it isn't any more, apparently the fact that that's how it was created is enough of a reason for the ultra pro-life to be against it. So instead, it's totes okay to risk the life of hundreds of living, breathing babies. *headdesk*
[br
Rubella kills fetuses or causes devastating birth defects if it is contracted by a pregnant woman. In the 1960s, there was a big rubella outbreak that led to thousands and thousands of stillbirths, miscarriages and therapeutic abortions. The rubella vaccine was then developed using cells from one or two of those aborted fetuses. The abortions had already happened for medical reasons because the fetus was infected with rubella. They were not aborted to create vaccines, nor are abortions still happening to create vaccines. The rubella vax has saved countless unborn babies. Pro-lifers should be the first in line to get that vaccine, if fetal well-being is really what they are ultimately worried about.
I can't believe I'm about defend anti vaxxers but this is not really an accurate picture of them. They are not sociopaths or fringe, for the most part. These are people who love their kids and are otherwise quite normal, every day people. And that's actually what is so terrifying about them. They are your friends, your neighbors, your collegues, and the parents in your play group. They are like you in every-other way but they happen to be playing a game of Russian roulette and you will never really know about it.
So disallowing a kid from school because he is not vaccinated, unless he has a medical condition, is not like sentencing him to a life in an episode of American Horror Story. It's more like I don't know...an episode of Portlandia meets Modern Family? Anyway that's the drawback. The benefit is that you prevent outbreaks of deadly diseases. I'm okay with this. But ultimately I think more people will choose to vaccinate rather than not send their kids to school.
Yeah, I am probably painting them all with a broad brush. I you are right that many would just get over it. Or do the whole delayed staging thing and just muddle through until the kids get everything and can go to regular school.
But I think many, particularly the anti-government, tinfoil hat, and/or religious types are at risk of just bugging out. While it also might be less concerning in urban or suburban areas because it will be harder for people to fall off the grid, it's going to be easier for those people to organize and figure out some arrangements to make opting out easier and fall into their own world.
Ultimately I think it's just a complicated issue because you can't punish the kids for their parents horrendous choices, and as @tokenhoser points out, create terrorist breeding grounds.
I'd feel better if there was some compromise that would keep the kids in mainstream society.
I'm not sure if the tin foil hat contingent is a large enough group to be worried about such that we shouldn't tighten exemption laws. I think actually there are more people who would be harmed by falling vax rates than kids who would be harmed because they are forced to be with their crazy nutty parents 24 hours a day as opposed to the 17 hours a day they would be with them if they were also in school. Sometimes public policy decisions are made because of what causes the least harm to society at large not because it causes no harm to no one anywhere. And really I bet many of the crazy nutter anti government anti vaccine tin foil folks are already keeping their kids out of school anyway.