New California Law Requires Doctor’s Note For Vaccine Exemptions… But There’s An Out

[edhopper]

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/jan/02/new-law-requires-doctors-note-vaccine-exemptions-c/

Under the new California law, parents will still be able to do that. But they have to get a signed form from their pediatrician saying they've been informed of the "benefits and risks of immunization."

Although the law took effect at the start of 2014, students only need this new form when they start kindergarten or middle school or move to California from out of state. Otherwise, their existing exemption will still apply.

But there's a way around this new requirement.

The new form also has a box that says the family belongs to a religion that prohibits "seeking medical advice or treatment." If parents check this box, they don't need a doctor's signature to exempt their children from vaccinations.

So it's alright to endanger children if God told you too.

[Warpy]

1. Those kids need to go to a religious school, then

or better yet, be home schooled.

There is no way there should be an "out" for other than medical reasons. Anybody can claim crackpot religion. It's rarely going to be true.

[Fumesucker]

2. Guessed it before I clicked on the thread

But there is no such thing as religious privilege.

[kdmorris]

3. Hey people don't want to vaccinate their children... more power to them

BUT they have to then keep their little Typhoid Marys and Harrys at home. The should not be allowed into school, pre-school or daycare if you aren't going to give a shit about the other kids your special little snowflake are going to put in danger.

My oldest daughter has now been vaccinated against Rubella 3X and she still doesn't have immunity to it. She has been counseled to get tested again before her next pregnancy and if still not immune, to get the shot then, in hopes that it lasts 10 months.

I don't know why it never seems to make her immune.

[cbayer]

4. Since there are very, very few religions that would qualify for this statement,

it won't be used very often. If a person has ever sought medical advice and then checks this box, I would hope there would be serious consequences.

[edhopper]

5. I don't think there is any

further questions once they check off the religion exemption.

People's religious beliefs aren't suppose to be questioned.

[cbayer]

7. I am assuming that this form is signed and is a legal document.

If they lie, I would hope there would be consequences. If they are not a member of the Christian Science Church or some other obscure sect, then they can't honestly claim this position.

People making a statement about their religious beliefs that is false and that has the potential for harmful consequences that this would should absolutely be questioned. That is entirely consistent with my position, and I think you know that.

[edhopper]

8. That is true

but absent an epidemic caused by one of these children, I doubt any prosecutor would go after some one for religious perjury.

Religion has special privilege.

[cbayer]

9. But there have been episodes of outbreaks due to not getting vaccinated.

That's the whole point of this law. I think a prosecutor would gleefully go after some one for lying on this form. It's not "religious perjury" and you are just trying to make this a case of religious privilege when it is not.

Cheap shot, to put it mildly.

[edhopper]

10. I used to term to mean

perjury about religion.

The very exemption is the definition of religious privilege.

[cbayer]

11. I truly believe that the good governor was trying to make an exemption for christian scientists.

It's not about privilege, it's about accommodation. They don't seek medical advice and could not obtain the signature of a doctor.

The vaccination issue is not a religious issue. You are just trying to make it one.

[edhopper]

12. How can it be for Christian Scientist

and not be a religious issue? And as the article shows, is that it is easily abused.

I have a problem with any religion putting children at risk, no matter their parents belief.

Vaccinations should be mandatory and only have a medical exemption.

[cbayer]

13. They have a 1st amendment right to practice their religion.

They don't see doctors and this law attempts to accommodate them.

It's about religion but not about religious privilege.

The article does not show that this can be easily abused. It suggests that this caveat has the potential to weaken the law and I agree with that. I think it has to be made clear that lying on this form is serious.

As much as I have issues with the christian scientists vis a vis medicine, I think they have a 1st amendment protection here. These children do not get vaccinated at this time and that will not change. This law is an attempt to make parents who do not fit this category comply with the vaccinations.

That's a good thing.

[edhopper]

14. I have a problem

with allowing their religious beliefs to harm their children. And there is precedent about medical care foe CS children.
There are many religious practices that are outlawed, polygamy and smoking weed come to mind. So i would say that the 1st Amendment isn't absolute in this area.

[cbayer]

15. I also have a problem with that and have been in some really difficult

ethical situations with both christian scientists and jehovahs witnesses. They are difficult situations particularly when it comes to kids, but I do think they have 1st amendment rights.

As I said, CS kids aren't vaccinated now. If you are suggesting that a law be implemented that would force CS kids to get vaccinated, that is quite a different matter.

This law is trying to address all those anti-vaccers that are creating a serious risk and that is a good thing. My position is to support this and leave the CS kids alone. They are a very small portion of the population and generally don't bother anyone.

Do you support outlawing the smoking of MJ for religious purposes? For any purposes?

[trotsky]

17. Do you support allowing parents to give their elementary school children pot?

At least compare oranges to oranges, cbayer.

[edhopper]

19. I support

pot legalization.

[cbayer]

20. Me too. Glad we cleared that up.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Who are we to judge what their religious beliefs are?

There are Catholics on this website and it is made very clear that you don't need to follow the position of the church on gay marriage, abortion, role of women, and host of other things and still be Catholic because they get to decide. So now we can say that it isn't a religious position to not want a vaccine?

We really need a flowchart of when we can make these claims and when we can't (though, really, we all know the answer).

[cleanhippie]

16. Easy: If it's considered "good", it's religious, if it's "bad" it's not religious.

I thought you would have seen that by now.

[trotsky]

18. The golden rule! n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. 1st Amendment Rights don't protect child endangerment or abuse

You don't get a religious exemption from the responsibility of having to feed your kids. You don't a get a religious exemption from your responsibility to house and clothe them. Why you get a religious exemption to provide them with adequate medical care would be baffling, but we all know the fucking answer already.