I guess this is the sort of question that everyone is asking these days. Yesterday I received a flyer in the mail advertising a seminar for estate planning professionals on how to advise their clients in light of the incoming administration. Of particular interest to my readers is how the Obama presidency will impact home schoolers and "mandatory" immunization programs. (If you have any input or links regarding midwifery, homebirth, or breastfeeding, please feel free to post in the comments; however, they tend to be state issues and I haven't heard any buzz about these topics).
Homeschooling - The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) recently sent out an e-lert on the subject of what to expect under an Obama administration. It states, "Despite HSLDA's efforts prior to the election to get an official statement from the Obama campaign regarding their position on homeschooling, we received no response." It goes on to mention the Democratic Party's support of the National Education Association (NEA) and public education in general, but asserts that the Federal government has no constitutional authority over home education. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the possibility that the United States under Obama will ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a move which HSLDA opposes.
The blogger at Obama States of America has done quite a bit of research. Rational Jenn critiques the HSLDA position. And then there are Homeschoolers for Obama ("because there is no such thing as 'the homeschool vote'").
Vaccinations - Before the election, Autism activist Becky Estepp contacted the Obama and McCain campaigns regarding the candidates' positions on the issue of vaccine safety. The McCain campaign responded with a statement that "John McCain believes in the right for individuals and in the case of children, parents, to make informed health care decisions, and does not support pre-empting these prerogatives." Obama, however, responded only with a general letter about autism which did not address the issue of vaccine safety or parental choice. However, according to New Jersey mom Claudine Liss who asked Obama point-blank about his stance, Obama replied, "I am not for selective vaccination. I believe it will bring back deadly diseases, like polio." More details are available from Age of Autism (McCain Addresses Vaccine Safety, Obama Silent, McCain Senior Policy Advisor Responds To Autism Questionnaire, and McCain or Obama: Who Will Reform Vaccine Safety?); Inside Autism (The autism election and McCain supports vaccine choice) and the Oct. 23, 2008 press release.
While the issue of mandatory immunizations and exemptions are currently a matter of state law, the federal government does have a role to play in funding vaccine safety research, enacting legislation exempting vaccine manufacturers from tort liability, the availability of military exemptions, and so forth. In addition, there are Constitutional issues involved in religious exemptions (the Equal Protection clause) and the reach of state vaccination requirements, for example to private schools which do not receive government funding, which could be decided by presidentially-appointed federal judges.
For my part, just because we have elected a president who does not appear to share my views on issues that I am passionate about (namely, the right of citizens to make healthcare and educational decisions on behalf of themselves and their children without government interference) does not mean that The End is upon us. Of course, we must be eternaly vigilant in guarding our precious rights and liberties. Fortunately - in this case at least - government is a slow-moving beast, and I have come to the conclusion that one man cannot screw things up so bad that we cannot get it fixed four or even two years from now.
Showing posts with label Vaccination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vaccination. Show all posts
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Vaccinations Among Homeschooled Children
The authors of an article published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics advocates that state governments require vaccinations for home schooled children:
Abstract (subscription required to view full article).
This line of thinking - or rather, illogic - is similar to that of the recent push for a mandated HPV vaccine for school children. The state has an interest in seeing that public school students are vaccinated because in the schools, large numbers of children are congregated in conditions which make it easy for diseases to spread quickly. There is a logical nexus between the state's action (requiring vaccinations) and the context of the requirement (enrolling in school). HPV, however, is not spread by casual contact, so there is no reason to require it in order to enroll a child in school. Likewise, homeschooled children are not more likely to spread diseases while "in school" than anyone else is at any other time. If the government has the authority to require homeschooled children to be vaccinated, does it not then have the authority to require anyone and everyone to be vaccinated?
HT: Saying No To Vaccines
And for a related article, Parents Use Religion to Avoid Vaccines.
With the spectacular growth in the number of homeschooled students, it is becoming more difficult to reach these youth to ensure that they are immunized at all. These children are frequently unvaccinated, leaving them open to infection with diseases that are all but stamped out in the United States with immunization requirements. States should encourage parents to get their homeschooled students vaccinated through enacting the same laws as those used for public school students. This could be done by enforcing current laws through neglect petitions or by requiring that children be immunized before participating in school sponsored programs. As most states require some filing to allow parents to homeschool their children, it would be easy to enact laws requiring that homeschooled children be immunized or exempted before completing registration.
This line of thinking - or rather, illogic - is similar to that of the recent push for a mandated HPV vaccine for school children. The state has an interest in seeing that public school students are vaccinated because in the schools, large numbers of children are congregated in conditions which make it easy for diseases to spread quickly. There is a logical nexus between the state's action (requiring vaccinations) and the context of the requirement (enrolling in school). HPV, however, is not spread by casual contact, so there is no reason to require it in order to enroll a child in school. Likewise, homeschooled children are not more likely to spread diseases while "in school" than anyone else is at any other time. If the government has the authority to require homeschooled children to be vaccinated, does it not then have the authority to require anyone and everyone to be vaccinated?
HT: Saying No To Vaccines
And for a related article, Parents Use Religion to Avoid Vaccines.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Notes on Healthy Immunization
TulipGirl has a great post on healthy immunization. More than once I have been witness to on-line discussions where someone asked about delayed vaccination schedules and got no help but only "why do you feel you need to vax?" questions. Mind you, we haven't vaxed yet and probably won't (as you might have guessed from reading my posts here and here and here); but the principle thing is true informed consent. Parents alone (not doctors, hospitals, public schools, state health departments, child protective services, or the CDC) are responsible for the health decisions they make on behalf of their children; and they need to be fully informed of their legal rights as well as the risk and benefits of any drug, treatment, or procedure. I'm not anti-vax per se but just anti-ignorance; and I applaud anyone who has made the decision to vaccinate and takes the time and effort to do it in such a careful way.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Is Thimerosol the New Tobacco?
The Los Angeles Times reports:
"A memo from the drug maker Merck & Co. shows that its executives were concerned about high levels of mercury in children's vaccinations nearly eight years before federal health officials disclosed the threat"
Link: Mercury Levels in Vaccines Eyed
"A memo from the drug maker Merck & Co. shows that its executives were concerned about high levels of mercury in children's vaccinations nearly eight years before federal health officials disclosed the threat"
Link: Mercury Levels in Vaccines Eyed
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Flu Shots Revisited
Hey this is nice:
The San Francisco Chronicle writes: "6 million doses of suspect vaccine in U.S. warehouses Quarantined since August pending tests".
"Chiron Corp. shipped 6 million doses of its now-suspect flu vaccine from its British plant to the United States before the company's own tests uncovered evidence of bacterial contamination....The Chronicle has learned that vaccine shipped across the Atlantic has been sitting since August in the warehouses of American drug distributors, under a Chiron-imposed 'quarantine' but outside the direct control of the company or U.S. regulators."
The San Francisco Chronicle writes: "6 million doses of suspect vaccine in U.S. warehouses Quarantined since August pending tests".
"Chiron Corp. shipped 6 million doses of its now-suspect flu vaccine from its British plant to the United States before the company's own tests uncovered evidence of bacterial contamination....The Chronicle has learned that vaccine shipped across the Atlantic has been sitting since August in the warehouses of American drug distributors, under a Chiron-imposed 'quarantine' but outside the direct control of the company or U.S. regulators."
Thursday, October 30, 2003
VACCINE LAW UPDATE
We returned from vacation to find our vaccine exemption affidavits had arrived from the Texas Department of Health (see Sept. 28, 2003 entry). They are sequentially numbered in the 3800s, which leads me to believe at least 760 people have requested forms and possibly as many as 3800 (max. 5 forms per child). They also included a one-page chart of "Benefits and Risks of Vaccination" and my original letter and envelope (remember, they are not supposed to retain this information). The operative part of the affidavit states:
"I have read and I understand the attached, Benefits and Risks of Vaccination information. I understand the risks of not vaccinating my child. I further understand that my child may be excluded from school attendance in times of emergency or epidemic declared by the commissioner of public health."
We returned from vacation to find our vaccine exemption affidavits had arrived from the Texas Department of Health (see Sept. 28, 2003 entry). They are sequentially numbered in the 3800s, which leads me to believe at least 760 people have requested forms and possibly as many as 3800 (max. 5 forms per child). They also included a one-page chart of "Benefits and Risks of Vaccination" and my original letter and envelope (remember, they are not supposed to retain this information). The operative part of the affidavit states:
"I have read and I understand the attached, Benefits and Risks of Vaccination information. I understand the risks of not vaccinating my child. I further understand that my child may be excluded from school attendance in times of emergency or epidemic declared by the commissioner of public health."
Sunday, September 28, 2003
As of September 1, 2003, Texas has become the 19th state to enact a "conscientious objection" exemption from vaccinations. Previously, Texas only provided for religious and medical exemptions.
This new law will not only allow for exemptions for non-religious persons, but it will also make things easier for parents who have objections to vaccinations based on religious grounds, but who do not belong to a religious organization that prohibits vaccinations per se. Previously, Texas law stated that in order to obtain a religious exemption, parents had to state that vaccinations conflicted "with the tenets and practice of a recognized religion, of which we are adherents." This conflicted with constitutional case law on the subject, which required only a sincerely held religious belief, but try explaining that to a school administrator who doesn't like the wording of your exemption letter.
Now this is strange: in order to obtain an exemption form, you must write (no email or online forms) to the Texas Department of Health and provide your childrens' names and birthdates (even though they are not allowed to retain this information once the form is sent), and the number of forms you want (copies are not accepted), sign it and have it notarized. Previously if you wanted a Religious exemption, you just wrote a little letter following the wording of the statute and signed it. The new form will be used for both the religious and conscientious (but not medical) exemptions.
According to the TDH, "The Texas Department of Health and the Texas Education Agency are providing school districts with guidance for implementing a new law intended to make it more difficult for parents to exclude their children from vaccinations required for school enrollment" [emphasis added]. Huh? The purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for us to exercise our constitutionally protected religious freedoms? They said it, I didn’t.
Another provision of the law prohibits a health and human services agency (including the Health Department and Child Protective Services) from taking punitive action against a parent for not immunizing their child. Here the definition of punitive action includes "the initiation of an investigation of a person responsible for a child's care, custody, or welfare for alleged or suspected abuse, or neglect of a child." In other words, CPS cannot come take you kids away for "neglect" just because you do not immunize.
And now for a little rant: Folks, vaccinations are not mandatory. No one can force you or your child to undergo any medical treatment or procedure without your consent. If they were, the government and health care provider would be civilly liable for any adverse outcome, and possibly guilty of civil and criminal battery as well. Shots are, however, required in order to enroll you or your child in a public school, and in some private schools, unless of course you take one of the aforementioned exemptions. I am amazed at the number of people who do not realize that they have choices when it comes to health care. Recently, a pregnant friend learned from an LDR nurse that the hospital where she will deliver her baby "requires" that all laboring mothers be confined to bed, and given a catheter and I.V. I just about hit the roof when I heard this. I explained to her that it was her right to refuse any medical treatment she did not want.
The purpose of this blawg entry is not to convince you to not vaccinate your children or to become difficult hospital patients, but to alert you to your constitutional, legal, and moral rights when it comes to drugs and medical procedures, on your own or your childrens' behalf. The phrase "informed consent" has no meaning if we do not have the option of "informed dissent." YOU are ultimately responsible for your health and your child's health; not your doctor, the government, the CDC, the drug manufacturers, or your state or county health department.
Links:
The new exemption process explained here.
Sample letter for obtaining an exemption form.
Texas vaccination info from P.R.O.V.E.
I really ought to link to the text of the new law, but I am too tired to look it up. Maybe later. Most of the people who read this are (I assume) lawyers anyway, so go look it up yourself.
This new law will not only allow for exemptions for non-religious persons, but it will also make things easier for parents who have objections to vaccinations based on religious grounds, but who do not belong to a religious organization that prohibits vaccinations per se. Previously, Texas law stated that in order to obtain a religious exemption, parents had to state that vaccinations conflicted "with the tenets and practice of a recognized religion, of which we are adherents." This conflicted with constitutional case law on the subject, which required only a sincerely held religious belief, but try explaining that to a school administrator who doesn't like the wording of your exemption letter.
Now this is strange: in order to obtain an exemption form, you must write (no email or online forms) to the Texas Department of Health and provide your childrens' names and birthdates (even though they are not allowed to retain this information once the form is sent), and the number of forms you want (copies are not accepted), sign it and have it notarized. Previously if you wanted a Religious exemption, you just wrote a little letter following the wording of the statute and signed it. The new form will be used for both the religious and conscientious (but not medical) exemptions.
According to the TDH, "The Texas Department of Health and the Texas Education Agency are providing school districts with guidance for implementing a new law intended to make it more difficult for parents to exclude their children from vaccinations required for school enrollment" [emphasis added]. Huh? The purpose of the law is to make it more difficult for us to exercise our constitutionally protected religious freedoms? They said it, I didn’t.
Another provision of the law prohibits a health and human services agency (including the Health Department and Child Protective Services) from taking punitive action against a parent for not immunizing their child. Here the definition of punitive action includes "the initiation of an investigation of a person responsible for a child's care, custody, or welfare for alleged or suspected abuse, or neglect of a child." In other words, CPS cannot come take you kids away for "neglect" just because you do not immunize.
And now for a little rant: Folks, vaccinations are not mandatory. No one can force you or your child to undergo any medical treatment or procedure without your consent. If they were, the government and health care provider would be civilly liable for any adverse outcome, and possibly guilty of civil and criminal battery as well. Shots are, however, required in order to enroll you or your child in a public school, and in some private schools, unless of course you take one of the aforementioned exemptions. I am amazed at the number of people who do not realize that they have choices when it comes to health care. Recently, a pregnant friend learned from an LDR nurse that the hospital where she will deliver her baby "requires" that all laboring mothers be confined to bed, and given a catheter and I.V. I just about hit the roof when I heard this. I explained to her that it was her right to refuse any medical treatment she did not want.
The purpose of this blawg entry is not to convince you to not vaccinate your children or to become difficult hospital patients, but to alert you to your constitutional, legal, and moral rights when it comes to drugs and medical procedures, on your own or your childrens' behalf. The phrase "informed consent" has no meaning if we do not have the option of "informed dissent." YOU are ultimately responsible for your health and your child's health; not your doctor, the government, the CDC, the drug manufacturers, or your state or county health department.
Links:
The new exemption process explained here.
Sample letter for obtaining an exemption form.
Texas vaccination info from P.R.O.V.E.
I really ought to link to the text of the new law, but I am too tired to look it up. Maybe later. Most of the people who read this are (I assume) lawyers anyway, so go look it up yourself.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
A SHOT IN THE DARK
A couple of news stories popped up recently regarding vaccinations, with my comments:
CDC Focuses on Late-Vaccinated Toddlers
The CDC reports that about 75% of all toddlers are vaccinated on time, and is making efforts to improve that number to 80% by the year 2010. The report opens with a story about a pregnant woman who was exposed to Pertussis (whooping cough) by an unvaccinated toddler. She was sick when she gave birth, and her newborn baby became seriously ill and spent several days in PICU as a result. On the surface, the anecdote seems to make a good case for vaccinating children. But wait – let’s dig a little deeper.
First, the Toddler in question was unvaccinated because his parents had objections (religious or philosophical) to all vaccinations. However, this is not the group that the CDC is focusing on according to the article. It is aiming to improve vax rates of children whose parents forget or neglect to complete the vaccination schedule. Presumably the CDC is not going after the 10% or so of parents for whom vaccination goes against their sincerely held beliefs. So why was this particular incident chosen to introduce this particular news story?
Second, the toddler in question had an obvious whooping cough. So why were his parents taking him to a playgroup with other children, let alone a pregnant woman? Part of the decision not to vax is the realization that you will have to stay at home for a week or more with your chicken-poxed child, etc., and will be careful about not exposing others.
Third, how did the pregnant woman get pertussis? Hadn’t she been vaccinated against it? And if she was, did the protection of the vaccination wear off? If she had been allowed to be exposed naturally to pertussis as a child, she would have been fully immunized against the disease for the rest of her life, and would have passed on some immunity to her unborn child. Not so with the vaccination.
Mothers lose MMR battle: Two mothers have lost their fight to stop their daughters being compulsorily vaccinated with the MMR jab
Somewhat disturbing, the BBC reports that two women in Britain have lost a court battle to prevent their daughters from getting the MMR vaccination against their wishes. In both cases, the fathers of the children brought suit to force the vaccinations.
A couple of news stories popped up recently regarding vaccinations, with my comments:
CDC Focuses on Late-Vaccinated Toddlers
The CDC reports that about 75% of all toddlers are vaccinated on time, and is making efforts to improve that number to 80% by the year 2010. The report opens with a story about a pregnant woman who was exposed to Pertussis (whooping cough) by an unvaccinated toddler. She was sick when she gave birth, and her newborn baby became seriously ill and spent several days in PICU as a result. On the surface, the anecdote seems to make a good case for vaccinating children. But wait – let’s dig a little deeper.
First, the Toddler in question was unvaccinated because his parents had objections (religious or philosophical) to all vaccinations. However, this is not the group that the CDC is focusing on according to the article. It is aiming to improve vax rates of children whose parents forget or neglect to complete the vaccination schedule. Presumably the CDC is not going after the 10% or so of parents for whom vaccination goes against their sincerely held beliefs. So why was this particular incident chosen to introduce this particular news story?
Second, the toddler in question had an obvious whooping cough. So why were his parents taking him to a playgroup with other children, let alone a pregnant woman? Part of the decision not to vax is the realization that you will have to stay at home for a week or more with your chicken-poxed child, etc., and will be careful about not exposing others.
Third, how did the pregnant woman get pertussis? Hadn’t she been vaccinated against it? And if she was, did the protection of the vaccination wear off? If she had been allowed to be exposed naturally to pertussis as a child, she would have been fully immunized against the disease for the rest of her life, and would have passed on some immunity to her unborn child. Not so with the vaccination.
Mothers lose MMR battle: Two mothers have lost their fight to stop their daughters being compulsorily vaccinated with the MMR jab
Somewhat disturbing, the BBC reports that two women in Britain have lost a court battle to prevent their daughters from getting the MMR vaccination against their wishes. In both cases, the fathers of the children brought suit to force the vaccinations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
