SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
foxnews.com/us/states-seek-to-cut-off-religious-exemptions-for-vaccination
Connecticut's Attorney General gave state lawmakers the legal go-ahead Monday to pursue legislation that would prevent parents from exempting their children from vaccinations for religious reasons, a move that several states are considering amid a significant measles outbreak.
The non-binding ruling from William Tong, a Democrat, was released the same day public health officials in neighboring New York called on state legislators there to pass similar legislation . Most of the cases in the current outbreak have been in New York state.
[...] Connecticut is just one of several states considering whether to end longstanding laws that allow people to opt out of vaccinations for religious purposes. In the face of outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, some have alleged religious exemptions have been abused by "anti-vaxxers" who believe vaccines are harmful despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
But the proposals to eliminate the opt-outs have also sparked emotional debates about religious freedom and the rights of parents.
Most religions have no prohibitions against vaccinations, according to Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Tennessee. Yet the number of people seeking the religious exemption in Connecticut has been consistently climbing. There were 316 issued during the 2003-04 school year, compared to 1,255 in the 2017-18 school year.
[...] All 50 states have laws requiring students to have certain vaccinations. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, all but Mississippi, West Virginia and California grant religious exemptions. As of Jan. 30, the conference said 17 states allowed people to exempt their children for personal, moral or other philosophical beliefs.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:15AM (5 children)
No papers, no entry to a hospital as a sales rep. And, I'm cool with that: high risk area for you and others.
Schools are trying to establish themselves as a high risk area, which they are to an extent, but since attendance is mandatory there should be some leeway for the whole freedom of religion/philosophical lifestyle choice thing that the colonists left Europe over in the first place. If you're not vaccinated and there's an epidemic going around, they notify you and more or less demand you stay home, which, as rare as actual epidemics are, sounds like a good thing to me. If you are infected, vaccinated or not, you should stay away from public spaces where people, vaccinated and not, are vulnerable to the disease you are presently carrying.
But, for _od's sake, these things are relatively rare... like Hurricane strike on the Gulf Coast rare - f'ing deal with it when it happens and stop with the idea that you can build hurricane proof cities directly on the coast, ain't gonna happen at any budget that anybody is willing to pay. Beef up the building codes? Maybe... I kinda like the island approach where you build a plywood shack on the beach, enjoy the _uck out of it for 20 years until the hurricane hits, then rebuild it after the storm passes, for a net cost much lower than trying to build a "hurricane proof" structure there that's only really going to withstand a slightly stronger storm, but still be toast in a direct F5 tornado strike no matter how you build it, short of in the style of a root cellar, which isn't too common on beachfront property.
To stretch that analogy over to vaccines: science says they're a good bet overall - and, all else being equal, I'd go with that. However, if, for whatever reasons rational, divinely inspired, or learned from nude models on the shopping channel, citizens of this country truly believe that they are, overall, better off without some or all of their vaccines, that's a cost-benefit analysis out there in the range where I think they should be able to make that call. They're not infected, there's not presently an epidemic raging through their city, and that's likely to be true for 20+ years in most places. When there's a problem with them, or the people in their town, take proper mitigation, quarantine... if that's too much of a PITA for your life and you think vaccines are better for you (and/or your minor children), go for it, vaccinate and take your chances when the epidemic strikes, that's a rational choice - just like the "hurricane proof" structures, it's still no guarantee.
On the other hand, anyone who knows they have measles, mumps, or any other highly contagious potentially deadly disease and goes out to spread it in public on purpose... that's a crime just as violent as firing a gun into the air on New Year's Eve, and the perpetrator should be held responsible for actual damages caused by their negligent actions.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 09 2019, @09:14AM (4 children)
You mis-understand. I did have all of my vaccinations, I just have no idea where a piece of paper proving it might be, it was decades ago and I was too young to be responsible for the safekeeping of paperwork at the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @01:15PM
The back of your original birth certificate most likely. That is where mine is anyway.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:51PM (2 children)
There are titer tests for many of the vaccines, and if you don't produce an adequate titer you probably needed a booster shot anyway.
And, there we go again - if vaccination proof becomes mandatory (outside specialized professions), do we really want to haul out every person who can't find their paperwork, force them to submit blood for testing, force them to get booster shots (when recommended by "science"), etc.? To me, that's the logical extension of all this mandatory childhood vaccination stuff, what about the under-vaccinated adults?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 11 2019, @09:17AM (1 child)
Sure, but I'll bet the people who don't want to take my word for it also don't want to cough up for the tests.
It was required to start school. I started (and completed) school. So the proof must have existed decades ago.
To be complete, I did not get vaccinated for Rubella since by the time the vaccine was commonly available, I already had immunity the hard way.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 11 2019, @12:56PM
That's not really proof, your parents could have exempted you - even back in the 1970s when it wasn't all over the news, it still happened.
You might be surprised... When we go to the county health clinic to get our Tetanus shots, the fee is really small, like $5, and I think that can be waived if you tell them it's a hardship for you.
I'm not crying conspiracy here, but there are interests out there who would happily pay for the whole population to be vaccinated for free, at least for those vaccines that are no longer IP protected and making big $$$ for their creators.
I agree with the current structure that makes it a more inconvenient PITA to get the exemption paperwork than it is to get the shots. Human nature, shots are painful, trips to the doctor/clinic to get shots are inconvenient (and somewhat costly), if all you had to do to exempt yourself/your kids was go online and check a box - that would lead to a public health crisis for no better reason than laziness.
On the other hand, if people believe in this decision strongly enough to go through more inconvenient PITA to get the exemption... at least that's passing some kind of "do they really believe, or are they just being lazy / protecting their kids from the pain of the shots?" threshold.
🌻🌻 [google.com]