Your child here in MN can go behind your back and get vaccinated without your consent

[Guest guest]

I know I have argued here before why all of us as people who think outside

the box should support parental rights ammendment, and here is exactly why.

Next up, perhaps mandatory school (SAD) lunches? Carol

California Further Erodes Parental Rights

In its 1979 Parham decision1 the U.S. Supreme Court held as a foundational

principle of American law the " presumption that parents possess what a child

lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making

life's difficult decisions. More importantly, historically [American law]

has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the

best interest of their children. "

Unfortunately, that respect for parental rights is no longer the standard2 -

and it eroded even further this past weekend when California governor Jerry

Brown signed into law AB499 allowing children as young as 12 to make their

own decisions regarding the Gardasil vaccine.

As constitutional law professor and former U.S. Magistrate Judge

Wagner warns in " God, Government, and Parental Rights, " a chapter he wrote

for the book Vaccine Epidemic, " the freedom of conscience and the sanctity

behind parents directing the upbringing of their children no longer serve as

moral benchmarks against which to measure whether government vaccination

laws are right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust. Instead, parents are

told that questions regarding vaccination laws are public policy matters for

the government to decide. " 3

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) opposes Governor Brown's

decision to sign this law, which NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher calls " a

violation of parental rights and federal vaccine safety law. " In a press

release

<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/national-vaccine-information-center-calls-

new-ca-vaccine-law-a-violation-of-parental-informed-consent-rights-and-feder

al-law-2011-10-10> , Fisher warns the law " is making it easy for big

corporations and trade organizations, including doctors and drug companies

protected from vaccine injury lawsuits, to exploit ordinary people to

increase influence and profits. " That's because the power to say " No " has

been transferred from an experienced adult to an impressionable child.

California is not the first state to pass such a law - Arkansas, Alabama,

South Carolina, and several other states4 allow minors to make such

decisions without parental protection, and Minnesota has already lowered the

bar to age 12 - and they will likely not be the last. It may be that your

state has already taken that power away from you.

If they haven't yet, it is likely they will. Progressive bureaucrats and

special interest groups continue to push the notion that the government must

make every decision, lest even one child fall victim to bad parenting.

In 1979, the Court called this mindset " repugnant to American tradition. "

Children must be protected, but freedom must be protected, too.

Nevertheless, The American Academy of Pediatrics in California this weekend

said

<http://www.blogher.com/california-gov-jerry-brown-oks-bill-allowing-minors-

seek-sti-prevention?wrap=blogher-topics/health/wellness & crumb=106900> " [We]

support parental-teen communication, and in a perfect world, all youth would

be able to speak openly with their parents or guardians about every health

decision. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. "

So, does the existence of a few bad parents, a few difficult situations,

justify the violation of the natural, longstanding rights of all fit

parents? California has decided that it does. And if your state doesn't

already agree, they will likely be next.

Adoption of the proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

can restore the legal presumption that was the foundational standard in the

Parham case. It can protect the natural right of fit parents to provide the

love and wisdom needed in making medical decisions for their child.

[Guest guest]

That really may be coming. I have a neighbor that sends her kids to an

exclusive preschool/daycare and they did not allow her to refuse the school

snack because of MN law. She wanted to replace the pasteurized milk with

bottled water and they would not allow her to. It was on the news one day last

week.

Ann Marie

On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:16 PM, Carol Frisk wrote:

> perhaps mandatory school (SAD) lunches?

[Guest guest]

Yes, this was indeed distressing! I lived in CA back in the day when Jerry Brown

was governor the first time and have always been a fan (yep, I'm guilty of being

a progressive). I signed my name to several petitions about this issue and send

emails to Sacramento but figured they wouldn't have much power since I'm in MN.

I know they mean well, (not Big Pharma) and are once again considering the

lowest common denominator (lousy parents), but it's sad and frightening and

infuriating that this happened.

>

> I know I have argued here before why all of us as people who think outside

> the box should support parental rights ammendment, and here is exactly why.

> Next up, perhaps mandatory school (SAD) lunches? Carol

>

>

>

>

>

> California Further Erodes Parental Rights

>

> In its 1979 Parham decision1 the U.S. Supreme Court held as a foundational

> principle of American law the " presumption that parents possess what a child

> lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making

> life's difficult decisions. More importantly, historically [American law]

> has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the

> best interest of their children. "

>

> Unfortunately, that respect for parental rights is no longer the standard2 -

> and it eroded even further this past weekend when California governor Jerry

> Brown signed into law AB499 allowing children as young as 12 to make their

> own decisions regarding the Gardasil vaccine.

>

> As constitutional law professor and former U.S. Magistrate Judge

> Wagner warns in " God, Government, and Parental Rights, " a chapter he wrote

> for the book Vaccine Epidemic, " the freedom of conscience and the sanctity

> behind parents directing the upbringing of their children no longer serve as

> moral benchmarks against which to measure whether government vaccination

> laws are right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust. Instead, parents are

> told that questions regarding vaccination laws are public policy matters for

> the government to decide. " 3

>

> The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) opposes Governor Brown's

> decision to sign this law, which NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher calls " a

> violation of parental rights and federal vaccine safety law. " In a press

> release

> <http://www.marketwatch.com/story/national-vaccine-information-center-calls-

> new-ca-vaccine-law-a-violation-of-parental-informed-consent-rights-and-feder

> al-law-2011-10-10> , Fisher warns the law " is making it easy for big

> corporations and trade organizations, including doctors and drug companies

> protected from vaccine injury lawsuits, to exploit ordinary people to

> increase influence and profits. " That's because the power to say " No " has

> been transferred from an experienced adult to an impressionable child.

>

> California is not the first state to pass such a law - Arkansas, Alabama,

> South Carolina, and several other states4 allow minors to make such

> decisions without parental protection, and Minnesota has already lowered the

> bar to age 12 - and they will likely not be the last. It may be that your

> state has already taken that power away from you.

>

> If they haven't yet, it is likely they will. Progressive bureaucrats and

> special interest groups continue to push the notion that the government must

> make every decision, lest even one child fall victim to bad parenting.

>

> In 1979, the Court called this mindset " repugnant to American tradition. "

> Children must be protected, but freedom must be protected, too.

>

> Nevertheless, The American Academy of Pediatrics in California this weekend

> said

> <http://www.blogher.com/california-gov-jerry-brown-oks-bill-allowing-minors-

> seek-sti-prevention?wrap=blogher-topics/health/wellness & crumb=106900> " [We]

> support parental-teen communication, and in a perfect world, all youth would

> be able to speak openly with their parents or guardians about every health

> decision. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. "

>

> So, does the existence of a few bad parents, a few difficult situations,

> justify the violation of the natural, longstanding rights of all fit

> parents? California has decided that it does. And if your state doesn't

> already agree, they will likely be next.

>

> Adoption of the proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

> can restore the legal presumption that was the foundational standard in the

> Parham case. It can protect the natural right of fit parents to provide the

> love and wisdom needed in making medical decisions for their child.

>

>

>

>