OK Republican calling for forced vaccininations - as predicted

[sh00ter]

Only the rich or the poor on welfare can generally afford to home school...so this is essentially forced vaccination for the middle class:

http://newsok.com/more-are-opting-out-of-childhood-vaccinations-in-oklahoma/article/5425740

Interestingly enough, he came here to escape this kind of treachery; this taken from his website:

Hi, I’m

Ervin Yen
and I am asking for your vote to be our next State Senator.
My family came to this country from Taiwan to escape Chinese Communism.

It is soooo easy to marginalize people who have concerns about forced vaccinations; lotta Bible belt Christians who are hypocrites if they support this use of aborted fetal cells to grow certain vaccine viruses such as for the MMR vacine...I'm hoping since this is a Republican doing this, that Ace on the turn will come out against this

 

[mugsy]

Only the rich or the poor on welfare can home school...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am waving the BS flag on this one right off the bat. There is another group called "the middle class who are willing to make material sacrifices for the welfare of their children" that also home schools. I would bet that they constitute either an outright majority or a plurality of home-schoolers at least based upon my home-schooling experience. They are the people that forego an additional car or extra income so that one parent can be home to teach, maybe the parents trade off to enable each to keep their respective jobs, etc. I knew folks who staggered their work times (one worked 8-4 and the other 5-9 so they could "cover down" on their kids' schooling). I sympathize and empathize with some of what you've written in the rest of your post but I think it is piss-poor to start off with a slanted view in the opening statement.

 

[crrcboatz]

Republican or Democrat I could care less. This is not a political issue. It is however a health issue for the children and parents of this state. As I see it our country is based on majority rule That said if the majority of citizens of a state want to protect the majority of kids in said state from those kids that are not vaccinated the majority have a right to do that. This is called states rights. I for one believe in required vaccinations. I spent 36 yrs in education, 27 of those as an administrator. l have grand children that I prefer they not be exposed to diseases that traditionally have been eradicated because of the required vaccination laws in this state. Why should a minority of parents/citizens go against this when the risk is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo small of side effects of these vaccinations? If you don't like the law move. Thank goodness "majority rules" is for the most part alive and well in our state. Minorities have no right to risk the lives of others with such idiocy.

 

[sh00ter]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am waving the BS flag on this one right off the bat. There is another group called "the middle class who are willing to make material sacrifices for the welfare of their children" that also home schools. I would bet that they constitute either an outright majority or a plurality of home-schoolers at least based upon my home-schooling experience. They are the people that forego an additional car or extra income so that one parent can be home to teach, maybe the parents trade off to enable each to keep their respective jobs, etc. I knew folks who staggered their work times (one worked 8-4 and the other 5-9 so they could "cover down" on their kids' schooling). I sympathize and empathize with some of what you've written in the rest of your post but I think it is piss-poor to start off with a slanted view in the opening statement.

It is like jerking the rug out from under those who already have a career Mugsy...they should grandfather people in so-as not to destroy their income mid-stream. What I said is just like saying that taxing smokes more is a "tax on the poor". A good argument can be made there.

 

[sh00ter]

Republican or Democrat I could care less. This is not a political issue. It is however a health issue for the children and parents of this state. As I see it our country is based on majority rule That said if the majority of citizens of a state want to protect the majority of kids in said state from those kids that are not vaccinated the majority have a right to do that. This is called states rights. I for one believe in required vaccinations. I spent 36 yrs in education, 27 of those as an administrator. l have grand children that I prefer they not be exposed to diseases that traditionally have been eradicated because of the required vaccination laws in this state. Why should a minority of parents/citizens go against this when the risk is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo small of side effects of these vaccinations? If you don't like the law move. Thank goodness "majority rules" is for the most part alive and well in our state. Minorities have no right to risk the lives of others with such idiocy.

We have a republic that was designed to protect against majority rule...you have no idea what you're talking about. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner...how about a majority of whites voting that blacks can't use their water fountains...see how that works? How about we prosecute anyone who gives you a cold or flu? You are a control freak...Perhaps I could find some things I'd like to force you to do that are enforced at the barrel of a gun (by the state)? Get the point? You do not have the right to force your will on other people...especially forcing Christians to inject their children with viruses cultured on aborted fetal cells...sounds like Joseph Mengele. ANd this state doesn't have required vaccination, hence the point of thsi new proposed legislation...your argument is entirely emotional and you should understand that people who do not vaccinate do it for the same reasons as you...to do what they think is best for their children. If your grandkid shed the measles virus after receiving the MMR vaccine, and he/she infected another person, would you feel responsible for choosing to take a vaccine that is factually known to make your kid contagious for weeks? Would you support FORCED quarantine for all children receiving live virus vaccines? I am challenging your logic to see if you are intellectually honest and consistent. Let's keep the discussion going and figure it out.

Also, are you pro-life or pro-choice? Considering only 1% of parents do not vaccinate in Oklahoma, and not all of those kids are in public schools, how many kids have died from measles in Oklahoma from public schools? And how many of those contracted measles from a recently vaccinated child who shed the virus? I'm thinking that you will have a hard time answering this because I doubt any have died and our freedom of choice is working just fine. Do you support kneejerk reaction legislation in other cases? Patriot act, etc?

 

[Coded-Dude]

 

[mugsy]

Sh00ter & Crrcboatz - I think you each are half-way there. We live in a constitutional republic with built-in protections for minority and/or general rights BUT in the overall context of majority rule on most issues. The U.S. Constitution isn't designed to prevent majority rule but rather to prevent its abuse. Majority rule is a principle that is easily abused and can easily veer into tyranny. Even when the majority decides that some issue must be backed by force of law it should be done to the minimum level required to meet the need. Stopping the spread of communicable disease can be a worthy and reasonable goal but even that can be abused. So, for example, immunizing againt certain diseases is necessary because the carrier may be infectious long before he displays symptoms and the disease may be spread very easily and so a preventative approach makes sense. Some other immunizations do not present as compelling a case - compelled HPV immunization of all children (males teens were just added to the recommended list) seems like gross over-reach, especially given that HPV isn't really preventing a "crisis" in the same sense as prevention of smallpox does. IMHO if the case isn't a compelling public health need then the State (federal or one of the fifty) should not be forcing anything as a general principle of law. Hmmm..I may have veered off of the OP topic a little, my apologies.

 

[KOPBET]

Only the rich or the poor on welfare can generally afford to home school

Silliness.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Required to attend school and forced are not the same thing. Not even in the same zip code. Vaxxers, keeping it unreal for a dozen years.

 

[sh00ter]

Sh00ter & Crrcboatz - I think you each are half-way there. We live in a constitutional republic with built-in protections for minority and/or general rights BUT in the overall context of majority rule on most issues. The U.S. Constitution isn't designed to prevent majority rule but rather to prevent its abuse. Majority rule is a principle that is easily abused and can easily veer into tyranny. Even when the majority decides that some issue must be backed by force of law it should be done to the minimum level required to meet the need. Stopping the spread of communicable disease can be a worthy and reasonable goal but even that can be abused. So, for example, immunizing against certain diseases is necessary because the carrier may be infectious long before he displays symptoms and the disease may be spread very easily and so a preventative approach makes sense. Some other immunizations do not present as compelling a case - compelled HPV immunization of all children (males teens were just added to the recommended list) seems like gross over-reach, especially given that HPV isn't really preventing a "crisis" in the same sense as prevention of smallpox does. IMHO if the case isn't a compelling public health need then the State (federal or one of the fifty) should not be forcing anything as a general principle of law. Hmmm..I may have veered off of the OP topic a little, my apologies.

A respectable post...but there are other vaccines where the cost/benefit just isn't there to even consider coercing people into it. That's what bothers me about the militant pro-vaccine movement. They do not break down the vaccines case-by-case...the gov't could require 1000 vaccines and there would be no questions asked from these people...some of the vaccines offer virtually no benefit by making all infants get them (such as Hep_B). It is an adult disease and a pregnant woman is tested for it in advance. Only those cases where the mother has the virus is there a case to be made that the baby should get it. But right now, ALL babies get it and it isn't justifiable unless you like controlling others, injecting aborted fetal DNA into your child, and have investments in drug companies . And that is a small % of the population of new mothers that are infected with Hep-B...these vaccines should be case-by-case and not blindly regarded as infallible and equal cost/benefit. Also, the schedule should be routinely evaluated. Some other developed nations like Norway that vaccinate have less vaccines and different schedules and their adverse effects vs. disease rates and infant mortality are much better than us. If someone only argues on emotion and wants to compel other people at the barrel of a gun to do something that they think could hurt their kid, then don't you expect some push back? And again, why do these conservative Christians seem to ignore the aborted fetal cells used to grow the viruses for some of the live virus vaccines? Isn't that the perfect case for a religious exemption? People like the guy earlier just make an emotional appeal about their grandchildren and ignore any counter-perspective because they have an agenda. That agenda MUST be to control other people with the power of the state because otherwise, a reasonable person would want to know the data and the risks to their children...again, how many kids die from diseases proven to be contracted by an unvaccinated child sent to school contagious by a negligent parent? Probably none in Oklahoma so isn't this a knee jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist? What's next, poll taxes for poor people and minorities? I mean, they can still vote right? So it isn't forced LOL.

Required to attend school and forced are not the same thing. Not even in the same zip code. Vaxxers, keeping it unreal for a dozen years.

I knew you'd go ahead and side with your neo-con buddies Ace...you know as well as I do that by doing this, they would disenfranchise the majority of people who wish to opt out...it is a form of coercion to deny access to public school for which I pay taxes for, because I will not do something that you think is best for my kids...sick control freaks and fear mongers is what we are dealing with...don't mess with our children and our freedom.