CO HB19-1312 School Immunization Requirements

[FoxtArt]

^ That's the conflict in a nutshell.

Although I think forced vaccinations are the least of our concerns (am I repeating myself?). There is nothing that stands in the way of gov being able to force things that are objectively against our individual best interests once we are sufficiently disarmed.


ETA: I started the thread because I thought it was interesting to watch the people who demand a gov boot on my throat for their collectivist interests, about to have their individual rights steamrolled as well.

The point of the 2A is exactly that, and the observation is true of any government in history. With sufficient power, there is little that stands in the way of gov't imposing its will absent the threat of any retaliation.

I do fail to see how this has ever been a "gov boot on a throat for collectivism", though. At no stage in our history has the gov't manufactured or been a real part in delivery of these vaccines - save for isolated incidents and it's stockpiles of certain things (anthrax, smallpox vaccines, etc.) and the gov't has never forcibly vaccinated anyone in quantities, nor will it ever, to my knowledge (outrageous isolated research being the exception) While people act like this is a 2A right's issue... what is your consequence for not vaccinating?

1) You can't have your child in public school, but you could in theory home school.
2) .... uh, nothing else.

Where's the gun owners going rabid about any Dick Tom and Steve being able to open carry in their kid's school? Anyone? Bueller?

So far the only record I've seen of anyone being penalized are in small epidemic areas subject to fine only.

What about speed limits, is that collectivism to not want people driving 95mph down residential streets? Bear in mind, speed limits are enforced more than any mandatory vaccine requirement - that would get you fined and arrested. If this threshold is the definition one has for collectivism, we're already the U.S.S.R.

Pathogens are invisible, and people fear needles / have ingrained borderline superstitions from culture. That's what the difference it outrage really boils down to. Can't see the risk, can see the pokey thing.

[Skip]

It very much feels like a fundamental rights issue, like 2A, to me.

Forcing vaccinations would be collectivism, no matter what the gov states is a government or collective interest. It defies reason that it could be viewed any other way because if individuals are not choosing it, then it clearly isn't a demonstration of individual free will but collective force.

In this case the force brings something that is widely perceived to be positive but there is nuance in the perception of compelling a person to do something in vs against his best interest. Plenty of statists will happily support a measure to compel people to do something in their own best interest even at the expense of liberty (e.g. 18th Amendment) but they pave the way for gov to force things against our best interests as well absent any moral "stops" once that authority is given. When the perception flips they howl, like Boulder moms right now, but they made it all possible.

Boulder mom supports me being disarmed. Maybe she thinks it's good policy (greater good), maybe she wants gov to force me to live a certain way to her advantage (fear?). Maybe she consciously supports gun control to disarm her political opponents (revolutionary liberal). Either way, the power structure she built in gov will turn out to be less of a scalpel and more a grenade.

The boot on the throat is everything you see CalforniaEast obsessed with: taxes, gun control, oil and gas regulation (property rights), etc... All of this starts with the voters giving politicians that mandate to claim what doesn't belong to gov for some greater good.

You can come up with dozens of examples that just don't quite fit like the speed limit, this is working towards compelling a medical intervention that has some level of personal risk which makes it very different and complex. Just like the Social Security gun control example didn't work because (for now) you can still opt out of public education (although you can no longer take your money with you) but you can't opt out of SS. I can choose not to drive a car and I can obey the speed limit if I do drive without any individual risk. I can also choose at a later time to disobey the speed limit should I find the collective's morality problematic or creates greater personal risk than noncompliance.

With that Takata airbag tho... Yikes.

But none of that works with the complex vaccine issue.

The goal of gun control is to ensure we can never disobey or create a balance of force which I think makes it unique with very few appropriate comparisons. Probably why the defense is #2 in the BoR.

[FoxtArt]

But none of that works with the complex vaccine issue.

I might agree with you if warrants were executed from judges, police came down, held you down, and a FDA doctor stabbed a syringe into your arm. Some posters here seem to believe that. I might also be inclined to believe you if the risk of receiving a vaccine was in any way shape or form, mathematically equal to, or greater to the risks of not having received the vaccine. But no, nobody is compelling it by force of any kind. It is enforced less than seatbelts and speeding, save for one exception: Public Schools.

A Public School is a government institution paid for by tax dollars. Considering that for a moment, now lets also consider that the students are not age of majority and cannot make their own decisions when attending a public school. And lets also consider for a moment, that Schools are already the worst petri dish your family can be exposed to, coupled with the fact that vaccines are only truly successful when they reach "herd" levels of immunity. So if it is justified to enforce seat belts - for your safety, why is it not justified to say "you can't let an un-vaccinated student attend this government school", where not only is the risk greatest - by far - but the people attending lack any choice to be there, and it's a government owned institution on top of it.

However, let's take the opposite approach for a second. Lets say, nobody can suggest you should get a vaccine, it's entirely a personal choice, enumerated as the 158th libertarian amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nobody could disagree with anti-vax propaganda. And if the herd isn't vaccinated anyway, why bother getting stabbed? What do you think the vaccination rate would honestly be for many of our most deadly of diseases?

[Skip]

I might agree with you if warrants were executed from judges, police came down, held you down, and a FDA doctor stabbed a syringe into your arm. Some posters here seem to believe that. I might also be inclined to believe you if the risk of receiving a vaccine was in any way shape or form, mathematically equal to, or greater to the risks of not having received the vaccine. But no, nobody is compelling it by force of any kind. It is enforced less than seatbelts and speeding, save for one exception: Public Schools.

Can you describe the mechanism that prevents this from being that slippery slope? I know that's unfair because I'm asking you to provide a negative in a way, but there really is a lot here to take in and a lot of examples how gov could force this (and worse) because collectivists perceive a benefit.

And if refusing vaccines is "child abuse" then yes, all of that could happen to a child.

Here's a story that broke a few years back about MA taking custody of a teen because there was a disagreement between doctors on a treatment plan. I think we did a big thread here about it. They ended up making her worse and delayed her treatment!

https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...drens-hospital

A Public School is a government institution paid for by tax dollars. Considering that for a moment, now lets also consider that the students are not age of majority and cannot make their own decisions when attending a public school. And lets also consider for a moment, that Schools are already the worst petri dish your family can be exposed to, coupled with the fact that vaccines are only truly successful when they reach "herd" levels of immunity. So if it is justified to enforce seat belts - for your safety, why is it not justified to say "you can't let an un-vaccinated student attend this government school", where not only is the risk greatest - by far - but the people attending lack any choice to be there, and it's a government owned institution on top of it.

Yup, that's probably the best way to do it. Courts have ruled some civil liberties don't apply in public school.

It again means there's an opt out. So if that opt out prevents the state from hitting HIT, this hasn't solved any problems, but it has concentrated unvaccinated children in clusters of private schools/homes.

However, let's take the opposite approach for a second. Lets say, nobody can suggest you should get a vaccine, it's entirely a personal choice, enumerated as the 158th libertarian amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nobody could disagree with anti-vax propaganda. And if the herd isn't vaccinated anyway, why bother getting stabbed? What do you think the vaccination rate would honestly be for many of our most deadly of diseases?

I honestly think it would be the same in CO before this ramp-up which coincides with what they are doing in California which is why it's an issue. Let's be honest, Dems aren't smart or nearly as altruistic as they claim to be. They are preparing their service economy workers for globalism.

---

According to Kevin Lundberg's email (to which I can't link!!!), 1312 passed the House.

1. Historic Turnout for Committee Hearing
The House committee hearing for HB-1312 was historic. Never have I seen that many people come out to testify against one bill. 600 signed up to testify, almost all were adamantly opposed to these new restrictions on immunization exemptions. It was impossible to determine how many tried to come to the hearing as several rooms were used to seat everyone. The hearing went until after 4:00 AM the next morning.

The result? As I said on my Facebook page: the Democrats were stone-deaf. After rejecting all meaningful amendments the bill passed on a party-line vote.

The party-line piece is interesting because Kevin Priola (R) was a sponsor. Don't know if he removed his support or not.

[FoxtArt]

I don't think it is a "slippery slope" at all, because if it was it would've already slipped. Broad, nationwide vaccine requirements to enter public school go back to at least 1922, with the first (Mass) going back to 1850. Inoculation requirements go back to the late 1700's. I know I had to be vaccinated to enter public school, and that's quite awhile ago too.

@ the year 2000, nobody would be arguing your points. Vaccination was required to enter public school, absent rare exemptions. Then came along the blond bimbo with debunked science, and all the sudden politicians were scrambling to loosen regs to appease the nuts. Now, the science has long, long ago seen the light, and the anti-vax crowd is now held in the same regard as the flat-earth crowd. Nevertheless, they are rabid- foaming at the mouth NUTS. AFAIK The regulation is simply moving it back closer to the pre-debunked science mandate, and the sky is falling, why? If the anti-vaxxers had any legitimate basis in argument, I could see justification for giving them a cookie, but their platform is top-down, full of crap. And in 97 years of court battles over vaccine school requirements (that have always held it's not "freedom" to infect others) it's never slipped into anything else.

I'd have to re-read all the posts, but my argument IIRC wasn't "child abuse" it was simply that "refusers" should be held liable (criminally and civilly) if they spread dangerous pathogens and do not otherwise have good reason to have not been vaccinated. Don't get vaccinated and never get sick? Not as big of a problem. It's a bit silly to say they shouldn't be responsible for the ramifications of their decisions, though; much like being reckless with a firearm usually results in prosecution only when you discharge it - and usually even then, when it causes damage/hits someone. If someone's an anti-vaxxer and their decision gets their neighbors infant killed, I'm fully on board with it ruining the anti-vaxxers life to the same extent - including jail and permanent, lifetime financial ruin. But sure, if someone is scared of a needle, they can risk it, if they so choose. That would be my preference. But that doesn't even exist, no, you just can't attend public school without a vaccine unless mommy or daddy fills out a form more frequently saying they are nuts. Prior to 2000, you wouldn't be on school grounds AFAIK.

[Skip]

"Progress" hasn't been a constant and physical control of people has been limited (again thanks to 2A). Lay the legislative foundation of medical choice being the gov's business and it will indeed get slippery. Way too much incentive for it not to. Add in disarmament where faceless/nameless bureaucrats can make these decisions and use the force of gov.

I was saying all some parties have to do is call a thing "child abuse" and all of the things you said won't happen will happen to a person. Those could be real consequences.

[avandelay]

The slippery slope is what they can keep adding to the mandatory 'list' of vaccinations. As I read it they are making the flu vaccine mandatory in this bill. The same vaccine that can be 90% ineffective because they guessed poorly on which strain would be most active. This is bad law.

[CS1983]

For those interested in some of the ethical considerations for refusal:

https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources/...es/#refuseVacc

http://cogforlife.org/catholicguide.pdf

[Skip]

You guys get your TB shots?

Border Patrol releasing thousands who were exposed to diseases like tuberculosis

https://www.conservativereview.com/n...-tuberculosis/

And then there's this new one no one is even talking about...

There are other mystery viruses whose origin is unknown, but one has to wonder if illegal immigration is the culprit. Beginning in August 2014, right after the influx of Central American teens, there was an outbreak of enterovirus D68, a respiratory illness, which many experts increasingly believe to be the cause of Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM), a mysterious polio-like disease that causes paralysis but starts out as what appears to be an innocuous cold. Health experts still say the cause is unknown, but it’s awfully suspicious that this disease did not appear until the latter part of 2014, right after the Central Americans started coming. 2014 is a benchmark year for those who follow immigration policy.

Over 550 Americans have contracted AMF since 2014, 90 percent of them children, according to the CDC, whereas the disease wasn’t even tracked before that. The enterovirus D68, milder compared to AMF, was barely on the radar for decades, yet from mid-August 2014 to January 15, 2015, there were 1,395 confirmed cases. It’s hard to identify a more potent variable being introduced into the equation right around that time than the influx of tens of thousands of Central Americans under the worst conditions.

[hollohas]

It's is absolutely a right for people to decide if they and their children are or aren't going to get vaccinated. The question is if kids who are unvaccinated should get access to public schools, and IMO they should. Unless there is a documented outbreak. Then, the state should have the ability to force those kids to stay home.

I don't see any reason to restrict public access to anything when there isn't a outbreak. Hell, unvaccinated kids have been attending public schools for decades without any major issue.

The state should largely stay out of this altogether. In reality, I think this entire issue is going to sway the public and there is no doubt in my mind that the number of unvaccinated children is going to be reduced dramatically now.

And that's how freedom is supposed to work. People make their own choices. When it turns out they made a bad choice, many of them will correct it on their own.