Where there is risk, there must be choice
Last updated 5/11/2022 at 5:56pm
The California Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-0 to allow minors to be vaccinated without parental consent or knowledge on May 5. The legislation, (SB) 866 as it’s known, introduced by Democratic Senator Scott Wiener, now moves forward.
After the hearing, the San Francisco Senator tweeted, “Teens should be able to protect their own health with vaccines – whether against COVID, flu, measles, or polio – even if their parents refuse or can’t take them to get the shot.”
The problem is that whoever is giving the shot is not responsible, either medically or financially, for adverse effects. The parents know the full medical history of the child. By far, most parents have their child's best interests at heart.
Children are easily coerced and may want to get a medical procedure, but if the parent, who is medically and financially responsible has no control or even knowledge of the medical procedure, how can they monitor for the side effects that are openly documented on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention VAERS database?
And how can they protect their child, who is more easily coerced?
It's a gross violation of parental rights.
Children, who have a statistical zero percent chance of death from COVID-19, are being legislated and coerced into getting vaccines even though they don't need them and their bodies produce a superior immunity naturally. The political lobby is just too strong. Those profits are too important.
A family that decides to risk the vaccine for a young person after informed consent is one thing. If that young person suffers heart problems (25% higher risk after the shot) or becomes paralyzed (See “Another young person with almost zero potential COVID-19 liability irreparably harmed by the ‘cure,’” Village News, Feb. 10, 2022), their family chose that path and will be responsible to take care of that minor. To put a family on the hook for care and medical bills possibly for life for a minor after not even having the ability to be informed or have parental consent is radically unjust. A family may lose everything financially, or even the life of their child, or, at the very least, just not know to seek help for early signs of side effects.
Where there is risk, there must be choice.
If the state won't be financially responsible and if the minor isn't able to be financially responsible, the parent is unfairly burdened without any control.
This is just one more example of how radical our supermajority is in Sacramento. Most of their radical bills have been pulled before voting because other challenges across the country have proven their ideas unconstitutional but this one still moves forward.
The bill analysis points to situations where the parents are too busy to take the children to get the vaccine or the "medical neglect" of the parents.
Even if this were an issue, which in this case it's not, you don't make sweeping laws and radical policy changes for everyone because of a few isolated bad situations.
Every decision a parent makes is as an advocate for that child, first and foremost. The politicians have other interests, including serving the interests of their big donors and the ideology of their political party.
The medical decisions of minors have to be primarily controlled by their parents, with rare exceptions handled through the courts or other proper channels.
Where there is risk, there must be choice, and real informed consent as well. We must protect our children from special interests.