XPost: alt.politics.trump, talk.politics.guns, alt.parenting.solutions
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fjb@nytimes.com
In article
wrote:
>
> Everybody say, "THANKS DEMOCRATS!" "YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!"
>
Should laws be passed that cut parents out of the decision-
making process for teens and vaccines?
Yes, if you’re the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, which
supports California Senate Bill 866, innocuously entitled
“Minors: Vaccine Consent,” which could come up for a vote in the
legislature anytime in the next week. Its recent editorial
argued that “California teenagers should have the right to
protect their health by receiving approved vaccines without
parental consent or knowledge.”
To that unprecedented and controversial claim, I say without
hesitation, “No!”
This is not an issue of parents versus children. We all
recognize that teens are still developing and are still
immature. Science has shown that their brains are still
developing. We still consider them to be minors because they
still need the influence and wisdom of loving parents. After
all, we don’t let minors use tobacco, vape, or vote. So, the
question is really: Who will help guide and protect minor
children—government bureaucrats or parents?
The L.A. Times Editorial Board implies parents cannot be
trusted. They advocate for minors to consent to vaccinations to
protect from what they describe as “vaccine misinformation” from
parents. But here’s the problem: The L.A. Times Editorial Board
wants government bureaucrats to be influencing kids. Parents
can’t be trusted, but government bureaucrats can—at least in the
eyes of the L.A. Times Editorial Board.
This is not only wrong but also directly contrary to U.S.
Supreme Court precedent. In the 1979 case of Parham v. J.R., the
court made this clear: “The law’s concept of the family rests on
a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in
maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for
making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically
it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents
to act in the best interests of their children.”
Parents, not government bureaucrats or even the Los Angeles
Times Editorial Board, must be trusted to review all the
information in consultation with their medical provider and make
the best decision for their kids. Many parents will choose
vaccinations. Others will choose to wait. Some will choose not
to use some vaccines.
Child safety is also an issue. If minors who are still
developing in their wisdom and maturity are being forced to make
adult decisions, what happens if they forget which vaccine they
received? What happens if they receive multiple and unnecessary
vaccinations? What happens if they suffer an adverse reaction,
and their parents, unaware they received a particular vaccine,
are not able to provide emergency medical services with accurate
and timely information?
All of these are issues that arise when laws are passed that
allow minors to consent to vaccinations and cut their parents
out of the process.
Some of these concerns led to our organization recently filing
suit against the District of Columbia and winning a preliminary
injunction in Federal District Court for the District of
Columbia in the case of Booth v. Bowser regarding D.C.’s
legislative scheme that allowed minors to consent to
immunizations. The court rightly agreed that D.C.’s Minor
Consent to Vaccination Act violated federal law.
Parents are a child’s first and best advocate. Parents know that
for their children, one size does not fit all. And I will always
stand with loving parents over some government bureaucrat who
may be a great person, but who at the end of the day works with
kids because they are paid to. The best way to protect children
is by empowering parents.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/24/no-the-state-shouldnt-cut-
parents-out-of-medical-decisions-for-minors/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
