Tuesday, June 16, 2009

State's Childhood Vaccination Policy is Sick

Drug companies have a very strong lobby and are always at work somewhere trying to get "just one more" vaccination on the "mandatory" list. It is astounding the number of vaccinations that a baby born in this state is supposed to have in their first six months of life. At some point, I have to wonder if their little immune systems will rebel against the repeated injection of foreign material into their bodies.

That's why we decided to go slow with our daughter. It is not that we refused any vaccines on the schedule, we just wanted to go "half-speed" on them. That does not apply to the MMR. When it is time for that one we intend to seek a religious exemption because the human diploid cells used in the vaccine were gleaned from aborted fetus(es) (see also here).

Anyway, up to this point we had not refused anything. We simply were alternating rounds rather than giving them two rounds each month. Well, the daughter turned six months old two days before her last appointment. The nurse brought us a form that she said was "required by law" for us to sign. The form said that we were "refusing" vaccinations. Not only that, but the vaccinations checked off on the form, the ones that we were allegedly "refusing" to give our daughter, were vaccines that we had already given her. That's right, the state wanted us to sign off that we were "refusing vaccinations" for vaccines that she had already been injected with. The state wanted us to have two rounds of these vaccinations by six months and we had only gotten to one round because we were going "half-speed".

Not only that, but the form we were supposed to put our name on had a paragraph that said something like "I understand that by refusing these vaccinations that I am endangering the health of my child and anyone that they might come in contact with". No doubt such forms can be used as evidence later when the state decides to grab the children of parents who hold "antisocial" political views. "Well, you signed right here that you knew you were endangering the health of your child" the DHS worker will purr. While decent folks might never think of using the form in this context, you have to think like they do in order to protect yourself.

IMHO any parent confronted with this form once their child reaches six months should either 1) line through the offending paragraph indicating non-agreement or 2) don't sign your real name, make up a non-sensical one indicating your non-agreement or 3) go across state lines for vaccinations where they still might have some sense.

That's between now and January of 2011. By then hopefully we can get the legislature to undo these ham-fisted gestapo tactics.

2 Comments:

Anonymous c.b. said...

Mark,
I have some close friends that have been foster parents for years, even having received "foster parent of the year" awards (or whatever they call them) in the past.
Even as we speak they are in a fight with the DHS, who is trying to remove the foster kids from their home & deny them from fostering in the future.
What, you may ask, have they done to justify this? Well, the DHS is citing a "rule" in the "updated" foster parent handbook (which has never been circulated or provided to current foster parents) stating that to be foster parents they must immunize their OWN kids. NOT the "state" kids but their own kids.
We're not talking about a law here, but some abitrary rule concocted, no doubt, by some low-level, activist, bureucrat who may even be on a drug company's payroll for all we know!
They have been in contact with our state rep & senator from our district, so we'll see what happens. Say a prayer for them if you think of it.

8:16 PM, June 16, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

As Mayor Frank Gilbert of Tull said of this story, "they are highly upset that we still have some leeway left in the raising of our own children".

4:50 PM, June 17, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home