Stealth Vaccine Laws Allow Children to Consent to Vaccines at the Age of 12

Stealth Vaccine Laws Allow Children to Consent to Vaccines
Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

(NaturalNews) A current California bill, AB 499, would "allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease."[1] That is, children as young as 12 will be able to get a Gardasil or other STD vaccine without their parents' knowledge or consent if this bill passes. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

So, giving the children of every parent in the state the ability to consent to medical treatment at any time amounts to the state declaring that all parents are unfit regarding those matters to which the children are given authority to consent.

California bill, AB 499

It would add to an existing law that already allows children starting at age 12 to consent to testing and treatment for STD's. The bill would add prevention, including vaccines to the law.

It isn't going over so well:
www.mothering.com... dge
www.maximumtheory.com...
druggingchildren.blogspot.com...

So let me get this straight,

1. As parents, we have no right to know if our child is sexually active at the age of 12, but the Govt does have the right.

2. If they decide to test new drugs on our children, they can...without our knowledge.

3. If they decided to put a little something extra in there, all it would take for them to apply it to our children is a nice colorful poster in the school cafeteria coaxing them to maybe have a new 'Miracle' cure for their 'Possible STD' or even "This new drug will make sure that you NEVER get a STD in your life!" Come in for your treatment at recess please!

And of course, the little darlings will line up. Especially if there is a nice little 'gift' to accompany the vaccine?

Kids at 12 yrs of age are not old enough to make a decision like this without their parents present...period!

Quite Simply:
www.maximumtheory.com...

Child consent laws also fail the common sense test. Children, by definition, lack capacity–the judgment and maturity–to make important decisions for themselves. For this reason, they can’t enter into binding legal contracts and don’t even truly own their possessions (technically, their parents do).

I can't even describe the sick feeling I have at the thought of what our children can be coaxed into submitting to while at school.

We better have some long, and constant talks with our kids. It will probably pass, I have no faith in the system at this point.

My kids know where my family stands on certain vaccines, guardasil, for sure and that is "none for us, no thank you!"

Originally posted by SunnyDee
We better have some long, and constant talks with our kids. It will probably pass, I have no faith in the system at this point.

My kids know where my family stands on certain vaccines, guardasil, for sure and that is "none for us, no thank you!"

These new long talks should be about not trusting the Govt. or teachers until the kid talks to the parents first!

I can't believe we have come to a point where we have to warn our kids about the 'Black Suits' at the age of 12.

Originally posted by jude11
So, giving the children of every parent in the state the ability to consent to medical treatment at any time amounts to the state declaring that all parents are unfit regarding those matters to which the children are given authority to consent.

I would think it's more about privacy than whether or not the parents are "unfit."

Lots of highschool kids have sex. Many don't get medical treatment/care related to being sexually active because they can't do it without their parents finding out. Having these laws allows for them to seek treatment - which they otherwise wouldn't - that will keep them healthier.

You can argue all day about how the parents have a right to know, but that's irrelevant. The kids don't want their parents to know and that's what's keeping them from receiving these treatments. Protecting their privacy in this area will benefit the kids who are having sex anyway, and no one will be worse off for it.

The alternative is to inform the parents, which we know will keep the kids from seeking the treatment. Are you so determined that "if the doctors know, then the parents should know" that you would stick to that policy even when it means allowing kids to go untreated for things that the doctors could help them with? I could see arguing that 12 is on the young side, but that's a detail and not the core issue. Would you be okay with it if the cut-off were 17 or 16?

When infnts are born in USA, isnt their first set of vaccines while still just a few pounds, laced with Thimerosal (Mercury) levels still dangerous for even a 220 lb man?

reply to post by Enkii


Not according to the vast majorty of people who have studied it. And, there's no reasonable argument to be made that the benefits of vaccinating the population against the diseases that we vaccinate them against has greater consequences to public health than not vaccinating them would. The diseases being prevented would be far worse and far more widespread than the ill effects that even the most hardline opponents of vaccines suggest that the vaccines themselves have.