Why are we so worried about vax vs non-vax? - Page 16 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#451 of 466 Old 04-28-2014, 08:38 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,066
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post

Supreme Court rulings never only cover one state.  They are a precedent for all states.   And there is no statute of limitation on a precedent. That old precedent is viewed as ****l giving states the right to resend religious exemptions, as the Mississippi Supreme Court did in 1979.  But over time the constitution of the court and the culture changes.  So arguably age does make it more likely that the court will make a ruling that limits the scope of an old precedent.  As was pointed out, this precedent was used to allow states the power to sterilize some people and I am sure they longer have that power even if it has not been explicitly taken away by a court case.

 



A bunch of female prisoners in California were sterilized without consent or approval. I wonder what SCOTUS would have to say about that today. http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/07/5549696/female-inmates-sterilized-in-california.html

Buck v. Bell and Jacobson v. Massachusetts certainly uphold the practice. Eugenicists actually used public health arguments to justify forced sterilization.

Fortunately, you're right about times and culture changing, as well as Constitutional elasticity. When the Jacobson ruling was issued, SCOTUS was addressing a massive, nationwide outbreak, (versus the sporadic, contained outbreaks of vaccine-targeted diseases that we see today). The mandates applied to adults, not children, and the only penalty for non-compliance was a 5-dollar fine, which would amount to about $143 today. Smallpox was also a dangerous disease with arguably one of the riskiest vaccines. Smallpox, unlike some of the vaccine-targeted diseases whose vaccines come with mandates, was also casually communicable. We also no longer have any liability for vaccine manufacturers. There are so many differences between then and now.

So yes, times have changed. It is inflammatory at best and downright dishonest at worst to use Jacobson v. Massachuetts to deny an education to a child who was born to a Hep B-negative mother and has not had the Hep B vaccination series.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#452 of 466 Old 04-29-2014, 08:38 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

So yes, times have changed. It is inflammatory at best and downright dishonest at worst to use Jacobson v. Massachuetts to deny an education to a child who was born to a Hep B-negative mother and has not had the Hep B vaccination series.

 

Since I brought up the Jacobson case, it was not in response to the issue of mandatory vaccines and education, but in response to this question: If the government will not insist on quarantine for something like measles when a person is actively sick and contagious, what makes you think they will legally insist on vaccination?

 

It was a good question, and I should have clarified when I responded with the Jacobson case, but basically my response is that there is a landmark-type case where this was decided. In later cases, the law reviews considered the issue of compulsory vaccination "settled" because of the Jacobson case. Teacozy cited Workman v. Yeager. Here is another case:

 

In Zucht v. King

Ordinances of the City of San Antonio, Texas, provide that no child or other person shall attend a public school or other place of education without having first presented a certificate of vaccination. Purporting to act under these ordinances, public officials excluded Rosalyn Zucht from a public school because she did not have the required certificate and refused to submit to vaccination. They also caused her to be excluded from a private school. Thereupon Rosalyn brought this suit against the officials in a court of the state. The bill charges that there was then no occasion for requiring vaccination; that the ordinances deprive plaintiff of her liberty without due process of law by, in effect, making vaccination compulsory, and also that they are void because they leave to the board of health discretion to determine when and under what circumstances the requirement shall be enforced, without providing any rule by which that board is to be guided in its action and without providing any safeguards against partiality and oppression.

 

Long before this suit was instituted, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, had settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination. That case and others had also settled that a state may, consistently with the federal Constitution, delegate to a municipality authority to determine under what conditions health regulations shall become operative. Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Francisco, 216 U. S. 358. And ****l others had settled that the municipality may vest in its officials broad discretion in matters affecting the application and enforcement of a health law. Lieberman v. Van de Carr, 199 U. S. 552. A long line of decisions by this Court had also settled

Page 260 U. S. 177

that, in the exercise of the police power, reasonable classification may be freely applied, and that regulation is not violative of the equal protection clause merely because it is not all-embracing.

 

I don't see how anyone pointing these things out in the course of a discussion when this topic was brought up is an attempt to inflame or be dishonest. I'm genuinely interested in exploring the question about whether parental rights are truly upheld by the courts in the ways that posters are speculating, which is why I looked into it and brought the info into the discussion.

 

You're right, though, these rulings were made before the days of informed consent. Nevertheless, a review written as recently as 2005 has stated "JACOBSON V MASSACHUSETTS (1905)1 is often regarded as the most important judicial decision in public health." That review goes on to point out the relationship of Jacobson to today's ethical expectations. The conclusion of this 2005 review is:

 

"Would Jacobson be decided the same way if it were presented to the Court today? The answer is indisputably yes, even if the style and the reasoning would differ.

The validity of Jacobson as a sound modern precedent seems, at first sight, almost too obvious. The federal and state courts, including the US Supreme Court,27 have repeatedly affirmed its holding and reasoning by describing them as “settled” doctrine.40(p176) The courts have upheld compulsory vaccination in particular on numerous occasions.41 Even the rare judicial reservations about compulsory vaccination focus on religious exemptions and do not query states’ authority to create a generally applicable immunization requirement.42"

 

I'm failing to see how an accurate assessment of historic and existing law in the US is somehow inflammatory or dishonest on the part of the person who posts it. I see why it can be upsetting, surely, but the fact that this law exists and that it has been upheld on numerous occasions is, well, fact. And it answers the questions that people are throwing around in the discussion-- the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the state's right to contain infectious disease. Maybe you are right that it should not apply to non-infectious diseases and things like Hep B. Other reviews of the law have examined these questions on Jacobson's appropriateness today.

 

Others have asked if I am trying to use Jacobson to "justify compulsory vaccination" or whether my knowledge of the case indicates that I don't "uphold parental rights."

Justifying and upholding rights are not things that I can do personally. I am just trying to show evidence that the courts have, in fact, justified compulsory vaccinations and upheld states rights as opposed to parental/personal liberties using this ruling.  If you show me examples where the courts have justified eugenics using Buck v. Bell, I would not assume that therefore you were in favor of eugenics.

 

As for paying taxes when kids aren't accepted into school, that's an issue that I would imagine has to be dealt with by lobbying representatives in our respective districts. Freedom from taxes when we cannot use a public service is not a civil right, even though access to education definitely is. I'm not sure exactly how these things would be weighed if someone did decide to hire a civil rights attorney and pursue the matter, but it is simple fact that there is a legal history of the SCOTUS upholding  the rights of states and localities to have compulsory vaccination requirements.

ss834 is online now  
#453 of 466 Old 04-29-2014, 01:14 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,066
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
I cannot two-thumb a long response to address all of your points, SS834, but you should know that I *try* to be careful to make it clear whenever I'm responding directly to someone's post, and I actually was not at all responding to anything you said.

I hold to my contention that judicial rulings have had inflammatory and dishonest rationales behind them. I feel the same way about various off-topic rulings like Citizens United.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#454 of 466 Old 04-29-2014, 01:44 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

I cannot two-thumb a long response to address all of your points, SS834, but you should know that I *try* to be careful to make it clear whenever I'm responding directly to someone's post, and I actually was not at all responding to anything you said.

I hold to my contention that judicial rulings have had inflammatory and dishonest rationales behind them. I feel the same way about various off-topic rulings like Citizens United.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

Either way, I did feel like I should clarify why I posted the case in the first place, since it was implied by a question that I was trying to use a eugenics law to support mandatory vaccination by my own argument, which was absolutely not my intent. Since you also mentioned forced sterilization, I was unsure of how you were relating to that statement.

ss834 is online now  
#455 of 466 Old 04-29-2014, 10:08 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,066
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Yea, just so we're clear, I was responding directly to Tadasmar, as noted by the quote box.

In Applejuice's defense, I'm not sure that she was indirectly or passive-aggressively accusing you of supporting eugenics so much as trying to expose the dangers of relying on J v M to uphold compulsory public health programs.

As wretched, rotten, fascist, bigoted, and sociopathically utilitarian as I find the philosophy of eugenics . . . . what its proponents argued for ***technically*** improves public health, (lower health care costs, less "spreading" of some conditions by reproduction, etc). What scares me is that to my knowledge, nobody has challenged Buck v Bell or even the provision reiterating it in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. So sterilizing those women prisoners in California, all hail stare decisis, is to this day constitutionally acceptable. I honestly don't know if there's much legal recourse against the perpetrators. They could be nailed on proceeding without the consent of these women . . . unless they make a case for "public health." It may be time to re-evaluate this disingenuously termed "balance" between public health and individual liberty.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#456 of 466 Old 04-29-2014, 10:14 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,066
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
By the way, is anyone familiar with the historical context of Jacobson v Mass? Henning Jacobson had previously seen his son suffer from a bad reaction from the small pox vaccine...not at all uncommon, as that was an extremely reactive vaccine. He refused vaccination, paid the fine, and then appealed to SCOTUS because he was fined. SCOTUS upheld that the policy of fining him was A-OK.

If we really wish to follow Jacobson to the letter, we could just ditch all of the school-based mandates, harassment, and intimidating exemption rigamaroles. Then non-compliant parents can just write a $143 check and be done with it. Sheepish.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#457 of 466 Old 04-30-2014, 07:41 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Edit. I might respond later.

ss834 is online now  
#458 of 466 Old 04-30-2014, 10:11 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:

If we really wish to follow Jacobson to the letter, we could just ditch all of the mandates, harassment, and intimidating exemption rigamaroles. Then non-compliant parents can just write a $143 check and be done with it. Sheepish.gif

Jacobson was a court ruling about a state law.  Using a fine would be following the state law to the letter, not the court ruling. What "we" are you talking about?  The courts never wished to follow Jacobson to the letter.  They wished to lift some logic from it and follow that.  (A fine is a mandate, by the way.) If we ditched the exemptions then non-vaccinated kids could not go to public schools. So you probably meant something different - but I am not going to put words in your mouth - perhaps you might want to explain if you indeed meant something different.  Anyway the exemptions are to a kind of quarantine law, and the quarantine law is believed to have public health benefits that a fine would not have. The courts wish to follow some of the logic of Jacobson as support for the quarantine law, in particular the logic of the constitutionality of the use of police power in support of the general welfare.

tadamsmar is offline  
#459 of 466 Old 04-30-2014, 10:52 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)

Interesting that you complain about the difficulty of getting an exemption.

 

Parents of kids with conditions that are recognized by the medical establishment as requiring an exemption happily go about getting the required records needed to get the exemption. Don't you all claim that your kid has a condition that makes vaccines dangerous to your kid?  Yet when it comes getting an exemption, you want it to be easier than getting a medical exemption.  You don't even have do the footwork required to document your medical claim.   If you claim you have medical grounds, then why are not satisfied with an exemption process that is easier than getting a medical exemption?  Seems like you should be just as motivated as anyone who gets a medical exemption.  Yet you are apparently are not as motivated.  I wonder why.

tadamsmar is offline  
#460 of 466 Old 05-01-2014, 04:19 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post

Interesting that you complain about the difficulty of getting an exemption.

Parents of kids with conditions that are recognized by the medical establishment as requiring an exemption happily go about getting the required records needed to get the exemption. Don't you all
claim
that your kid has a condition that makes vaccines dangerous to your kid?  Yet when it comes getting an exemption, you want it to be easier than getting a medical exemption.  You don't even have do the footwork required to document your medical claim.   If you claim you have medical grounds, then why are not satisfied with an exemption process that is easier than getting a medical exemption?  Seems like you should be just as motivated as anyone who gets a medical exemption.  Yet you are apparently are not as motivated.  I wonder why.

I'm wondering to whom you are addressing this post? And why on earth do you think medical exemptions need no documentation?

Getting a medical exemption requires not just a doctor's signature, but a detailed letter from the doctor explaining why he or she is exempting the child from further vaccines. Some states (like NY) can apparently override the doctor's exemption.

If your pediatrician retires, or if you move, you may end up with a new pediatrician who disagrees with your previous one, and refuses to sign the exemption form. There are some misguided doctors who do not believe that a previous adverse reaction puts you at increased risk for further reaction (until it happens to their own child, of course).
Taximom5 is offline  
#461 of 466 Old 05-01-2014, 05:48 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


I'm wondering to whom you are addressing this post? And why on earth do you think medical exemptions need no documentation?

Getting a medical exemption requires not just a doctor's signature, but a detailed letter from the doctor explaining why he or she is exempting the child from further vaccines. Some states (like NY) can apparently override the doctor's exemption.

If your pediatrician retires, or if you move, you may end up with a new pediatrician who disagrees with your previous one, and refuses to sign the exemption form. There are some misguided doctors who do not believe that a previous adverse reaction puts you at increased risk for further reaction (until it happens to their own child, of course).

I agree, and I thought I said that.  I said:

 

"Parents of kids with conditions that are recognized by the medical establishment as requiring an exemption happily go about getting the required records needed to get the exemption."

 

It's relatively hard to get a medical exemption. 

tadamsmar is offline  
#462 of 466 Old 05-01-2014, 07:19 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
 

Interesting that you complain about the difficulty of getting an exemption.

 

Parents of kids with conditions that are recognized by the medical establishment as requiring an exemption happily go about getting the required records needed to get the exemption. Don't you all claim that your kid has a condition that makes vaccines dangerous to your kid?  Yet when it comes getting an exemption, you want it to be easier than getting a medical exemption.  You don't even have do the footwork required to document your medical claim.   If you claim you have medical grounds, then why are not satisfied with an exemption process that is easier than getting a medical exemption?  Seems like you should be just as motivated as anyone who gets a medical exemption.  Yet you are apparently are not as motivated.  I wonder why.

 

I am confused by this post.

 

I do not think anyone happily goes about getting a medical exemption.  I suspect it is often a difficult process.  

 

I do not claim my child has a condition that makes vaccines more dangerous for my specific kids than other kids.  I am not sure how many people on MDC expect or have medical exemptions for their children.  My children have philosophical exemptions on file.  Of religious, medical and philosophical, philosophical best fits.  Perhaps you dislike philosophical exemptions, but I do not care.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#463 of 466 Old 05-01-2014, 12:02 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,066
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post

Interesting that you complain about the difficulty of getting an exemption.

Parents of kids with conditions that are recognized by the medical establishment as requiring an exemption happily go about getting the required records needed to get the exemption. Don't you all
claim
that your kid has a condition that makes vaccines dangerous to your kid?  Yet when it comes getting an exemption, you want it to be easier than getting a medical exemption.  You don't even have do the footwork required to document your medical claim.   If you claim you have medical grounds, then why are not satisfied with an exemption process that is easier than getting a medical exemption?  Seems like you should be just as motivated as anyone who gets a medical exemption.  Yet you are apparently are not as motivated.  I wonder why.

I edited my post to specify "school-based mandates."

And our right to say no to any medical intervention should not require us to prove our "motivation" to those demanding our compliance.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#464 of 466 Old 05-01-2014, 12:08 PM
 
phxfinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

If vaccination rates drop? We have the HIGHEST rates of vaccination in history, and we have the worst outcomes. We are #37 in infant mortality compared to all other other first world countries. We are still having "outbreaks" and many of these outbreaks are in the fully vaccinated. Herd immunity obviously isn't working if we've had the worst Whooping Cough outbreaks in x number of years while we have the highest rates of vaccination.

phxfinn is offline  
#465 of 466 Old 05-01-2014, 12:13 PM
 
phxfinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Don't need it easier to get exemptions? Ooh, that comment makes my blood boil.

 

My daughter came down with eczema and lost half her vocabulary within 3 weeks after a vaccine. The pediatrician told us the eczema wasn't related and that it was "normal" to lose language while "working on other things." She proceeded to not learn any new words or walk for 5 months - leading to an ASD diagnosis. My second daughter came down with eczema after the same vaccine. That's when we realized it wasn't a coincidence and stopped vaccinating. When I called to get dates and paperwork to record it, they had NO record of the "regression" conversation and misdiagnosed the eczema in the records and gave her the eczema diagnosis a year later. I've come across no MD's that will sign a paper claiming any kind of vaccine reactions for a medical waiver. When my daughter got sick from the Rotavirus vaccine, I called to report to VAERS and our pediatrician told us flat-out not to report it because vaccine reactions were normal! The same pediatrician who said the other reactions were all unrelated. Insanity! 

phxfinn is offline  
#466 of 466 Old 05-01-2014, 01:05 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
 

I agree, and I thought I said that.  I said:

 

"Parents of kids with conditions that are recognized by the medical establishment as requiring an exemption happily go about getting the required records needed to get the exemption."

 

 

You've made a seriously mistaken assumption in believing that conditions are "recognized by the medical establishment."  

There is no agreement amongst the "medical establishment" as to what conditions preclude vaccination.

You'll get a different answer from a pediatrician vs. a neurologist vs. a rheumatologist vs. a dermatologist.  Even within specialties, they don't agree.

You can have a reaction that HHS considers a table injury, and I guarantee I could find a doctor that would still believe you should receive that vaccine again.

The bottom line, of course, is this: 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post



And our right to say no to any medical intervention should not require us to prove our "motivation" to those demanding our compliance.

(bolding mine)

Taximom5 is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off