Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday June 17 2019, @01:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the multivac dept.

Anti-Vaxxers Defeated: NY Bans Exemptions as Doctors Vote to Step up Fight:

Anti-vaccine advocates received a blow in New York Thursday as state lawmakers banned non-medical exemptions based on religious beliefsā€”and there may be more blows coming.

Also on Thursday, the American Medical Association adopted a new policy to step up its fight against such non-medical exemptions. The AMA, the country's largest physicians' group and one of the largest spenders on lobbying, has always strongly support pediatric vaccination and opposed non-medical exemptions. But under the new policy changes, the association will now "actively advocate" for states to eliminate any laws that allow for non-medical exemptions.

"As evident from the measles outbreaks currently impacting communities in several states, when individuals are not immunized as a matter of personal preference or misinformation, they put themselves and others at risk of disease," AMA Board Member E. Scott Ferguson, M.D. said in a statement. "The AMA strongly supports efforts to eliminate non-medical exemptions from immunization, and we will continue to actively urge policymakers to do so."

The religious exemption ban in New York comes at a critical time. The state is at the forefront of a nationwide resurgence of measles, with active outbreaks that have sickened hundreds and splintered into other states.

"This administration has taken aggressive action to contain the measles outbreak, but given its scale, additional steps are needed to end this public health crisis," New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a statement after signing the ban on religious exemptions. "While I understand and respect freedom of religion, our first job is to protect the public health, and by signing this measure into law, we will help prevent further transmissions and stop this outbreak right in its tracks."

Sudden outbreak of common sense?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by Alfred on Monday June 17 2019, @02:25PM (3 children)

    by Alfred (4006) on Monday June 17 2019, @02:25PM (#856641) Journal
    You do like it? Go to New York. We don't want your kind here.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @05:55PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @05:55PM (#856717)

    Already here and happy to be so.

    And nobody is forcing anyone to do anything here. The change in the law just invalidates so-called "religious exemptions."

    This means that (as the law has been for half a century) if you want your child to attend school, they must either be vaccinated or have a valid exemption. Only *medical* exemptions are allowed now.

    No one is forcing anyone to vaccinate their kids, but if they're not vaccinated (or can't be), they will not be allowed to put other children at risk.

    • (Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday June 18 2019, @09:43PM (1 child)

      by Alfred (4006) on Tuesday June 18 2019, @09:43PM (#857187) Journal
      The has thus changed what can be forced where it was not forced before. Or rather more accurately since only one group is affected then they are being singled out. Singling out by religion is discrimination. But as new york demonstrates, discrimination by religion is now, at least partly, legal. I keep a liberty for all stance even though I have met plenty of religious nuts. Vaccinations are great but liberty is more important. Of course it could be argued that preventing illness is interfering with evolution of the species by letting the bad DNA proliferate.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @03:08AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @03:08AM (#857309)

        The has thus changed what can be forced where it was not forced before. Or rather more accurately since only one group is affected then they are being singled out. Singling out by religion is discrimination. But as new york demonstrates, discrimination by religion is now, at least partly, legal. I keep a liberty for all stance even though I have met plenty of religious nuts. Vaccinations are great but liberty is more important. Of course it could be argued that preventing illness is interfering with evolution of the species by letting the bad DNA proliferate.

        Now hold on there a second, sport.

        Firstly, there is no religious discrimination going on at all. In fact, removing religious exemptions actually gets *rid* of religious discrimination. How so? Because if you can get an exemption *because* of your religious beliefs, that means that many people who are not religious are being singled out for discrimination by their lack of belief.

        As such, the change in the law gets rid of religious discrimination, not the other way around. Because now, those who got *preferential* treatment via a religious exemption (a clear violation of the First Amendment) are treated the same as anyone else.

        What's more, New York is not the first state to do this. California, Mississippi, and West Virginia [insider.com] already required *medical* exemptions.

        Further, even without a religious exemption, no one is "forced" to vaccinate their kids. Those kids just aren't allowed to put *other people's kids* at risk.

        No liberty is lost here. Parents may still vaccinate or not vaccinate as they choose. The only difference is that people who *don't* worship imaginary sky daddies no longer suffer the discrimination you claim to deplore.

        Or are you arguing that those with religious beliefs should receive preferential treatment?

        If you feel that's true, then someone who honestly believes that jihad is god's will, shouldn't be arrested or imprisoned for carrying out their sincerely held religious beliefs, right?