CA Gov signs the vaccination bill in to law

[mnrose]

I vaccinated my kids, so I am not an anti-vac person. In fact I strongly think you SHOULD vaccinate, but I am not going to tell someone else what to do. Now, states can make their own decisions, but it should be based on the people's will, not on some politician who is most likely bought off by either big pharma or pressure from bigger govt. Did Californians vote on this? If they did, ok. Did the gvt do this on their own? Than not ok.

Oh good grief. Every time I read "did we vote on this" it makes my head hurt. We are a REPRESENTATIVE form of government. That is how this country was founded, and it is embedded in our constitution (and I'm willing to bet, embedded in all state constitutions...although I have not personally checked that assertion). That being the case, we elect our representatives to act in our stead. Presumably that is what happened. Now, if some person (or group of people) believe that their particular representative has not acted the way they want, it is up to them to either establish a recall drive or get a different person elected the next time around to change that law.

We do not (and I believe CANNOT) vote on every single issue that our legislatures currently handle. Do you really even want that??!?!

 

[kamik86]

When DH first brought this up he stated it as "CA is now making it a law that you have to vaccinate" to which I responded "There is no way they could do that you can't force someone to inject something into their body... wait did you mean just to go to school?"

Because I would whole heatedly agree that you can't force anyone to vaccinate. You can't require them to vaccinate their children.

I think they can require you to vaccinate to attend school however. The practical matter is that either the children who cannot vaccinate for medical reasons or the children that choose not to vaccinate can not attend school. You can't put that many non-vaccinated children together and not have outbreaks of disease.

If one group can't attend it should be those that choose not to vaccinate, not those who were unlucky enough to have medical issues.

If those that choose not to vaccinate would like to start a private school where they could send all their children... or even apply as a magnet school that students have the option to attend (and would still receive per pupil funding at the same level of other schools) I would be ok with that.

 

[already]

I am not in favor of the gvt telling you that you HAVE to do something. That is not their job. Their job, one of them, is to secure the borders which is a huge issue. The diseases brought in are no joke, as we are seeing.

I am just curious how we are going to do this? Are we going to quarantine everybody visiting our country at the airport for several days to make sure they were not exposed to a disease?

From what I understand, the measles outbreak was caused by a foreigner legally visiting our country and vacationing in Disneyland.

It just seems so much more complicated than just saying "secure our borders."

And in this case, the government is not telling you what you HAVE to do. There is no law that you have to vaccinate. The government is telling you what you can't do. If you don't vaccinate, you cannot attend a government funded school.

 

[aprilchem]

As the parent of a child who was exposed to measles from an unvaccinated child when she was too young to be vaccinated, I applaud this law. It wouldn't have protected my daughter (she was exposed at the pediatrician's office, not at school), but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[kamik86]

The thing I am afraid will happen however is that they will find a sympathetic doctor that is willing to lie and either
1) Provide medical exceptions that aren't warranted - Now this may be easy to trace. If you suddenly find that 10% of your schools population have medical exceptions and 8% are from one doctor..
2) Will claim to have vaccinated the child. You can't really PROVE You got a vaccination besides the records from the doctor that you did. If the doctor buys the vaccines and simply dumps them and you pay the rate for the visit and vaccination your child is now "vaccinated" I have no idea how they would trace this. I think the only way for it to be traced is if someone whistle blows that the doctors are doing this and starts an investigation or an outbreak occurs and someone connects the dots that most of the students with the disease go to doctor X.

I don't think it will keep nearly as many vaccinated children out of schools as one would hope.

 

[kamik86]

As for the government telling you that you have to do something... this is extremely common and accepted by nearly everyone in most cases

1) If you want to drive you have to get a licence. In most states you also have to insure your car
2) Your children have to attend school unless you have an approved homeschool program (this one here doesn't even have an if you want to do X in front of it... why isn't this the biggest concern?)
3) If you want to enter government buildings you have to follow certain rules
4) If you have a dog you must vaccinate it with certain vaccines and register the dog
5) If you walk that dog you must have the dog leashed
6) If you own a home you must upkeep the sidewalk

and many many more...
They are all legal as long as they give you a choice not to do them, even if that means you can't partake in the benefit associated with it...

I'm actually not sure how the gov gets away with the school one though...

 

[already]

From the article..."The United States is one of the few countries where states and school districts require proof of vaccination for children to attend public schools." I would be very interested in statistics from other countries- vaccination compliance rates and outbreaks recorded....if what many here are applauding as a 'great thing' really is all that 'great' or effective then the US schoolchildren should be the safest kids in the world. (Insert rolleyes here) Statistically speaking. Personally, all other arguments aside,the idea of govt. mandated medical compliance that leaves no room for questioning or personal choice is.... Disturbing. . Erosion of parental rights sounds great to many....till some other issue comes along that you may or may not agree with,but you are given no decision in the matter. I'm not addressing the right vs. wrong of This vac here,just the notion that you as a parent get no option.

But there is plenty of room for personal choice. I would agree with you if the government had said that every child must be vaccinated, period. But that is not what this law says. A parent still has every right in the world to not vaccinate. That right is not being stripped away. There is no erosion of parental rights. If you don't want to vaccinate, that is the parent's right.

There is nothing wrong with making an informed decision which means weighing the consequences of that decision. The parent still has the right to not vaccinate. There are many choices in life, vaccination vs brick and mortar schools is just another parenting decision.

What about the rights of the parents who don't want their children exposed to potentially deadly diseases, especially if their children are medically fragile, unvaccinated children?

This is a great compromise. Parents still retain the right to not vaccinate their children. But the unvaccinated children have to stay away from other children in a large, congested setting like a school.

 

[sukhakuli]

Here's this article, from the time of the Disneyland outbreak, that provides some contrast:

I realize that this issue has regained some traction lost having pivoted from an issue of science to one of "health freedom" that will appeal to a wider audience, but as previously mentioned the notion of "forced vaccination" is a red herring. Parents may still opt to not have their kids vaccinated for mere reasons of "fear", but they would lose the option to have their kids attend a group school. What the "health freedom" supporters are really demanding is that they have complete "freedom" on this issue without any consequences attached to their decision. They in effect want to be able to tell schools and health officials "Here's my unvaccinated kid... deal with him. If he becomes part of a disease vector because the Vitamin C I give him didn't prevent him getting measles, mumps, etc., hey, it's not my problem." I like the way that The Onion framed the "parental choice" notion with vaccines: "I demand the right to determine which eradicated vaccine preventable childhood diseases come roaring back!!!"

But, the affluent parents of California need not fret too much. There's still a medical exemption option available to them, and there are sympathetic pediatricians in the state that for the cost of an office visit, would be more than happy to issue their kid a "medical exemption" to do an end-run around the new law.

Along those lines: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/07/01/now-what-sb277/

 

[undertheradar]

The thing I am afraid will happen however is that they will find a sympathetic doctor that is willing to lie and either
1) Provide medical exceptions that aren't warranted - Now this may be easy to trace. If you suddenly find that 10% of your schools population have medical exceptions and 8% are from one doctor..
2) Will claim to have vaccinated the child. You can't really PROVE You got a vaccination besides the records from the doctor that you did. If the doctor buys the vaccines and simply dumps them and you pay the rate for the visit and vaccination your child is now "vaccinated" I have no idea how they would trace this. I think the only way for it to be traced is if someone whistle blows that the doctors are doing this and starts an investigation or an outbreak occurs and someone connects the dots that most of the students with the disease go to doctor X.

I don't think it will keep nearly as many vaccinated children out of schools as one would hope.

There are Ethics Boards and Medical Review Boards for reasons such as this.

 

[sukhakuli]

You'd think that would do something, but it doesn't. Despite the fact that Bob Sears is openly anti-vaccination, and even had patient zero in one of the CA outbreaks, he is still allowed to practice. Same goes for Dr Oz, he is still doing cardiothoracic surgery at Columbia even though he's one of the biggest peddlers of pseudoscience out there. Those boards and reviews are more for egregious medical malpractice.

 

[Geoff_M]

There are Ethics Boards and Medical Review Boards for reasons such as this.

While an unscrupulous doctor might be sanctioned by a professional oversight board, the law's medical exemption is sufficiently vague to not really require the fudging of vaccination records. Here's what it says (bolding mine):

SEC. 5. Section 120370. (a) If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325, but excluding Section 120380) and Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415 to the extent indicated by the physician’s statement.

So, the doctor has to go on record as stating WHY they feel that vaccines are not recommended for the child, but there's no mention of any criteria that will be used to determine if the rationale meets any current standard of care or is "reasonable". Dr. David Gorski, in the link posted sukhakuli provides this contrast between the new California law and others:

The biggest weakness in SB 277 is that it appears to leave it pretty much up to a child’s pediatrician regarding whether a medical exemption to the school vaccine mandate is medically indicated. In that, it is similar to the Mississippi law. In contrast, in West Virginia, it isn’t just the word of the child’s physician that matters; all requests for medical exemptions are reviewed by an Immunization Officer, who determines if they are appropriate “based upon the most recent guidance from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) with respect to medical contraindications or precautions for each vaccine.”

 

[Dawnlight]

As the parent of a child who was exposed to measles from an unvaccinated child when she was too young to be vaccinated, I applaud this law. It wouldn't have protected my daughter (she was exposed at the pediatrician's office, not at school), but it's a step in the right direction.

This is also part of the problem. It will start at vaccinate or you can't send your kids to public school (and private, as they have to follow same/similar vaccinating laws), then it will morph into something else, which will be mandatory vaccination- period. Kids can be exposed at malls, grocery stores, movie theaters, museums, public transportation, and anywhere else.

2) Will claim to have vaccinated the child. You can't really PROVE You got a vaccination besides the records from the doctor that you did. If the doctor buys the vaccines and simply dumps them and you pay the rate for the visit and vaccination your child is now "vaccinated" I have no idea how they would trace this. I think the only way for it to be traced is if someone whistle blows that the doctors are doing this and starts an investigation or an outbreak occurs and someone connects the dots that most of the students with the disease go to doctor X.

If it becomes a problem, with people either finding a sympathetic doctor or fudging a vax record, then the law may go further- they might require titer tests to prove immunity. I had to do this for my oldest, born in another country that didn't vax. for chicken pox. He had the pox when he was a toddler, but my saying so was not enough proof for the public school (my word was fine when he went to private). He had to get a titer test to prove that he had antibodies (he did).

But there is plenty of room for personal choice. I would agree with you if the government had said that every child must be vaccinated, period. But that is not what this law says. A parent still has every right in the world to not vaccinate. That right is not being stripped away. There is no erosion of parental rights. If you don't want to vaccinate, that is the parent's right.

There is nothing wrong with making an informed decision which means weighing the consequences of that decision. The parent still has the right to not vaccinate. There are many choices in life, vaccination vs brick and mortar schools is just another parenting decision.

What about the rights of the parents who don't want their children exposed to potentially deadly diseases, especially if their children are medically fragile, unvaccinated children?

This is a great compromise. Parents still retain the right to not vaccinate their children. But the unvaccinated children have to stay away from other children in a large, congested setting like a school.

But this is putting their foot in the door; the law may be expanded so there is later no room for personal choice. There absolutely is an erosion of parental rights. It's easy enough for people to say to those who chose not to vax that they should homeschool, but there are people who aren't capable of homeschooling. This is like the federal government linking funding to state speed limit laws. Yeah, sure, you still have the right to do X, but if you don't you won't get X. That's not maintaining parental rights, that's coercion and bribery, imho.

Just as people expect those who don't vax to keep their kids homeschooled, they could also say the same for medically fragile kids. Just keep them homeschooled if they are so fragile; they'd probably be better off anyway as they'd have less exposure to viruses and bacterial infections that we don't have vaccines for.

Another thing that I find curious is how many people seem to have such blind faith in vaccines, yet are fearful of their kids contracting diseases that they were vaccinated against. How is that? When I was doing my research on chicken pox vaccines and titer tests, I found articles saying that many people who have received vaccines have been found to have no antibodies present- so vaccines aren't always reliable. I think it's a false security in some respects.

 

[mefordis]

When DH first brought this up he stated it as "CA is now making it a law that you have to vaccinate" to which I responded "There is no way they could do that you can't force someone to inject something into their body... wait did you mean just to go to school?"

Because I would whole heatedly agree that you can't force anyone to vaccinate. You can't require them to vaccinate their children.

I think they can require you to vaccinate to attend school however. The practical matter is that either the children who cannot vaccinate for medical reasons or the children that choose not to vaccinate can not attend school. You can't put that many non-vaccinated children together and not have outbreaks of disease.

If one group can't attend it should be those that choose not to vaccinate, not those who were unlucky enough to have medical issues.

If those that choose not to vaccinate would like to start a private school where they could send all their children... or even apply as a magnet school that students have the option to attend (and would still receive per pupil funding at the same level of other schools) I would be ok with that.

This law covers all schools, public and private. It also covers universities, colleges, all public schools as well as private at every level. It also covers daycare centers. Residents will have to either get fully vaccinated OR homeschool every single grade.

 

[undertheradar]

So the choice is obvious, get vaccinations or make arrangements for your children. Looks like an attempt at requiring personal responsibility, rather than passing responsibility to the rest of society.

 

[mefordis]

The schools in CA are going to suffer. Public (and some private) schools get federal funding for each student and when people start dropping out and homeschooling (which many, many will do) they are losing out on that money.

I wonder if the Steiner schools out there will have to close down.

 

[ImDMous]

I'm very happy about this. We have schools in well-to-do areas near us that have anti-vax rates in the teens, a few are 20%. That is definitely a breakdown in the herd immunity and if one of those kids goes on vacation to a foreign country (which they are likely to do because of wealth), they could wipe out half their class all because it's the "thing to do" among the Star Bellied Sneetches. The schools in our city are more like 2% because they are average to lower income and they value their healthcare. I don't believe all of those people actually object to vaccinations. It's very trendy to not vaccinate your kids around here in Southern California, which is ridiculous.

 

[aristocatz]

I've always wondered why this wasn't common law all along. A few years ago my area had a whooping cough outbreak that resulted in an innocent child's death

I don't think anyone should be forced to vaccinate their children. However, I absolutely think it should be a requirement to enter school. There are certainly other options for education, such as home schooling.

 

[morgan98]

So the choice is obvious, get vaccinations or make arrangements for your children. Looks like an attempt at requiring personal responsibility, rather than passing responsibility to the rest of society.

I agree with this completely. It seems that if you want the benefits of participating in certain aspects of society, at times you have to comply with rules that try to benefit or protect everyone.

Perhaps there is some risk with being vaccinated. But if you are more comfortable avoiding vaccination and potentially exposing your child and others to deadly diseases, there may be some places where your child will not be welcomed.

Again, I believe people may make the decision not to vaccinate because they are making the decision in a country where, in most cases, most people are vaccinated in high enough numbers to protect your child too. People may be making different decision if some of these deadly childhood diseases made a resurgence and being vaccinated was a more obvious life or death decision.

 

[sukhakuli]

This is also part of the problem. It will start at vaccinate or you can't send your kids to public school (and private, as they have to follow same/similar vaccinating laws), then it will morph into something else, which will be mandatory vaccination- period. Kids can be exposed at malls, grocery stores, movie theaters, museums, public transportation, and anywhere else.




If it becomes a problem, with people either finding a sympathetic doctor or fudging a vax record, then the law may go further- they might require titer tests to prove immunity. I had to do this for my oldest, born in another country that didn't vax. for chicken pox. He had the pox when he was a toddler, but my saying so was not enough proof for the public school (my word was fine when he went to private). He had to get a titer test to prove that he had antibodies (he did).



But this is putting their foot in the door; the law may be expanded so there is later no room for personal choice. There absolutely is an erosion of parental rights. It's easy enough for people to say to those who chose not to vax that they should homeschool, but there are people who aren't capable of homeschooling. This is like the federal government linking funding to state speed limit laws. Yeah, sure, you still have the right to do X, but if you don't you won't get X. That's not maintaining parental rights, that's coercion and bribery, imho.

Just as people expect those who don't vax to keep their kids homeschooled, they could also say the same for medically fragile kids. Just keep them homeschooled if they are so fragile; they'd probably be better off anyway as they'd have less exposure to viruses and bacterial infections that we don't have vaccines for.

Another thing that I find curious is how many people seem to have such blind faith in vaccines, yet are fearful of their kids contracting diseases that they were vaccinated against. How is that? When I was doing my research on chicken pox vaccines and titer tests, I found articles saying that many people who have received vaccines have been found to have no antibodies present- so vaccines aren't always reliable. I think it's a false security in some respects.

That's the slippery slope argument, and things rarely go that way. For instance, supposedly we have freedom of speech in this country, however, the Supreme Court knocked that down in the 1800's. But in the almost 200 years since, the government hasn't taken away our freedom of speech aside from things that are a danger to public safety, such as joking with TSA agents or yelling fire in a crowded place. Never putting laws in place because of this fear of bizarre things that could happen is a bit extreme.

And for your last paragraph, no one says that vaccines are 100% effective. Each vaccine has varying degrees of efficacy. There are people who are too young to be vaccinated, and there are people who are so ill that they can't be, or their immune systems are so weak that even though they are vaccinated it won't keep them from getting infections. We have a responsibility to protect those people, or do you think they don't count?

 

[mondragon]

So the choice is obvious, get vaccinations or make arrangements for your children. Looks like an attempt at requiring personal responsibility, rather than passing responsibility to the rest of society.

Exactly. Basically no vaccine, no school. This has nothing to do with border protection. Even we all travel out of the country to exotic places where we are exposed to strange diseases where there are no symptoms for months then all of a sudden there is an outbreak.