Quote Originally Posted by OxArt View Post
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


Quote Originally Posted by OxArt View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by OxArt View Post
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.