California Passes Vaccinations Without Parental Consent

reply to post by sokpuppet


once again, injecting people with types 1, 2, and 3 of polio is NOT stopping polio.... im glad you enjoyed your monkey tissue culture grown "dead" poliovirus shot.

reply to post by predator0187


So in order to prevent kids from getting STD's, they GIVE them STD's ?

We have just let a bunch of rich idiots start running our country and passing laws.

Originally posted by sokpuppet
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

 

Yup - you are right - I just hate it that them baddies stopped polio! My family was in the wheelchair, steel crutches and coffin business, and that damn Jonas Salk and his NWO/Alien/Black Helicopter buddies done killed our sales!

I have a feeling you have your Reynolds wrap chapaeu already firmly affixed to your gourd and firmly grounded to repel any probes - however, I don't think you have taken the most important step that most people forget - electical outlet sockets! The PTB have control of every electrical connection on the grid, and guess where those copper wires behind the outlets in your house/apartment/hovel run? Yup, the are tied right into that same grid, giving those "people" (or whatever their reptilian form is today) a direct route to your personal space. You may need to sever the wiring itself, but I understand many people that know the truth just take a nice strong bar-b-que fork and jam it right in the outlet itself. Hold on tight, and all be be well.

I'd love nothing more than to force ignorant people like you to sit in a room with my neighbor and explain to her how wonderful that polio vaccine was. you see my neighbor, the most gentle loving soul you could ever imagine, was given the vaccine and shortly after contracted polio. it almost killed her and has left her with a lifetime of suffering and medical problems. your condescending attitude is useless to the debate and only serves to make you look more ignorant then you already did. your argument is very weak. it sounds a lot like "I got the vaccine and nothing bad happened to me". how about doing your homework before you talk down to people who have obviously looked into this much more than you have. look into the ingredients of these vaccines and what each one individually does to the human body. then come back to us and explain to us how modern science is wrong and injecting aluminum or mercury into your bloodstream is helpful or even safe. it'd be different if you even had an argument but tinfoil hat & reptilian insults? is that really the best you can do? I hope you realize just how pathetic that was.

This has nothing to do with vaccines and everything to do with RFID chips. This is to help the elite track humans like cattle. The people like Jenny McCarthy, who are refusing to get their kids vaccinated due to their belief that it causes Autism, are throwing a wrench into the original system of inserting the RFID chip. So now they had to come up with a new excuse to give the shot without having to have parental permission.

Take away rights and put tracer tags on all the livestock! It makes it easier to corral them for slave labor for our Overlords!!!

reply to post by Phage


I understand and appreciate the limitations which are put into place to prevent an abusive exercise of government control over a child in this situation (Section 6922), but what should a rational and civilized lay person understand from the conflicting ages listed? One law seems to be stating that the government has the right to ignore parental sovereignty, and the other law seems to be justifying causes/considerations for well intended government intervention.

Phage, I often see things that I judge as poor in your posts, but I also see things that I judge as very well. I fully extend my complete attention to and consideration of your knowledge on this "technical" question, and also your own view on whether it is right for a government to shake aside natural order for the sake of either a fear or a money-making scheme.

Personally, if my son grows up to be a person who mates physically without also, at the same time, mating spiritually, then, at that point, I would be happy if the government could do better than me.

reply to post by Dasher

The law seems to "ignore" parental rights only under very special circumstances; when the minor is living away from and independent of their parents. A child who is living at home or is supported by their parents cannot give consent. The law also allows the health provider to notify the parents regardless of the child's wishes. This statement:

This means that if you live in California, school or medical personnel would be allowed to vaccinate your child against an STD without your ever knowing it.

is incorrect. The law does not say this.

There is only one law, not separate laws. 15 year olds are permitted to consent to forms of care (including dental) which 12 year olds are not. However, in addition to treatment for infectious disease, 12 year olds (meeting the other conditions) are also allowed to consent to mental health treatment (with additional conditions), treatment following rape, and counseling and treatment for a drug problem.

The law does not remove parental rights. It provides a means whereby minors can receive medical treatment when their parents are unavailable to give consent. The law concerns a runaway or an abandonment situation. Do you think it better that the minor in these circumstances not be allowed treatment? What's the alternative? I suppose that instead of the child being allowed to provide consent, they could be made into a ward of the state. In which case the state could determine treatment. Is that a better solution? How should the "natural order" be invoked here when it is already broken?

My god, thats just scary. I dont think even Hitler would have been that sick. I have two daughters here in NZ. If they said that here, I would home school them straight away.

just registering utter dismay at what these "lawmakers" are getting away with.

gardasil is questionable at the moment anyway, with not enough testing AND serious concerns arising over it's side-effects and ingredients.

tell u what, lets have compulsory vaccinations after all the elite have been forced to watch them being given to THEIR children.

reply to post by Phage


If 12 year old kids can consent to vaccinations, which are questionable at best, than why can't they drink beer or smoke cigs?

I don't get it.

Seems to me the "Age of consent" should apply across the board.

I agree with 12-13 historically speaking but, people are so uneducated these days perhaps the typical 17 year rule of thumb may be better. I don't know.

I just think it's odd they can consent to one chemical cocktail, but cannot legally purchase the others.

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
Soooo.... when do we just start acting out? Because apparently that's what it's gonna take... Protests do nothing.. THIS, this is riot worthy. Combined with the FDA tryna ban supplemental vitamins, this is burn something down worthy....

Hel yeah, that would be a good start for sure.

reply to post by predator0187


This is scary wow...

I'll knock a bunch of people out if they try to vaccinate my son without my consent. Try it I dare you. F*ck this planet we live with a bunch of retards. Please aliens pick me and my family up and take us to a better planet where people aren't morons.

reply to post by predator0187


Why are they so damn desperate for all kids to get this particular vaccine?

reply to post by ladyteeny


The Elite don't get vaccinated

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by predator0187

 

Why are they so damn desperate for all kids to get this particular vaccine?

They aren't. There is no mention of any vaccine. The idea is to make it possible for "street kids" to get medical treatment.

Minors who are not living at home or supported by their parents are allowed to provide consent for medical treatment if they have been exposed to infectious disease, among other things.

Thanks Kommifornia for solidifying any and all reasoning for never living there.

reply to post by macman

Missouri too then I guess.

Consent to surgical or medical treatment, who may give, when.
4) Any minor for himself in case of:

(a) Pregnancy, but excluding abortions;

(b) Venereal disease;

(c) Drug or substance abuse including those referred to in chapter 195;

www.moga.mo.gov...


Illinois:

Sec. 4. Sexually transmitted disease; drug or alcohol abuse. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a minor 12 years of age or older who may have come into contact with any sexually transmitted disease, or may be determined to be an addict, an alcoholic or an intoxicated person, as defined in the Alcoholism and Other Drug Abuse and Dependency Act, or who may have a family member who abuses drugs or alcohol, may give consent to the furnishing of medical care or counseling related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease. Each incident of sexually transmitted disease shall be reported to the State Department of Public Health or the local board of health in accordance with regulations adopted under statute or ordinance. The consent of the parent, parents, or legal guardian of a minor shall not be necessary to authorize medical care or counseling related to the diagnosis or treatment of sexually transmitted disease or drug use or alcohol consumption by the minor or the effects on the minor of drug or alcohol abuse by a member of the minor's family. The consent of the minor shall be valid and binding as if the minor had achieved his or her majority. The consent shall not be voidable nor subject to later disaffirmance because of minority.

www.ilga.gov...

Pick a state. Go ahead. But it seems that California's law is more restrictive, allowing only minors living away from home and unsupported by their parents to give consent.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Dasher
The law does not remove parental rights. It provides a means whereby minors can receive medical treatment when their parents are unavailable to give consent. The law concerns a runaway or an abandonment situation. Do you think it better that the minor in these circumstances not be allowed treatment? What's the alternative? I suppose that instead of the child being allowed to provide consent, they could be made into a ward of the state. In which case the state could determine treatment. Is that a better solution? How should the "natural order" be invoked here when it is already broken?

While I agree with your rhetoric and appreciate your response to the technical side of my questioning, there was no reason for you to respond to me with any rhetoric at all. I stated what the law appeared to say, and asked for your assessment of the law (and it's appearance), both factually and by opinion. I clearly stated agreement with your rhetoric/tone in the last paragraph of my post.

I say again; If my child is so wayward and apart from good judgment or I and my wife are so wayward and apart from good judgment that he would need this law (to facilitate order where familial order has broken down), then I would be thankful.

Thanks again for your technical response.
I hope you will move past jaded reactionary inclinations and fight a good fight despite all of the good reasons to, instead, simply be a scoffer. It is better to express good judgment (godly conduct) than it is to claim the name in vain (I understand that you make no claim, but it is more likely for those who strive for truth and are jaded to end up expressing life than it is for the hypocrites who continually lie to others and themselves).

It's strange to live in a world of animals who often don't think they are animals, but rightfully see their distinction from the animals, live rationally, but are not rational towards irrational people, or live religiously, but are not religious towards non-religious people.

Can't we all just get along?

Originally posted by predator0187

The state of California has just passed bill AB499, which will permit minor children as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines like Gardasil without parental knowledge or parental consent. This means that if you live in California, school or medical personnel would be allowed to vaccinate your child against an STD without your ever knowing it.

At issue, of course, is whether 12-year-olds are mature enough to fully analyze the benefits versus risks of vaccination (or any medical treatment for that matter), or recognize the alternatives to STD prevention, such as abstinence. Meanwhile, a child could suffer a vaccine reaction and the parent, not knowing the child had been vaccinated, could mistake it for the flu or another condition, delaying getting help until it is too late.

Well this is just crazy. If they are considered minors and do not have the ability to vote then they should not be getting vaccinations without parental consent.

At 12, no child understand the benefits or drawbacks of getting certain vaccinations.

This is getting crazier and crazier by the day...

Any thoughts?

Pred...

Gosh that Gardisil vaccine is a dangerous one. To try and have school officials vaccinate the children with it (against their parents' wishes) is sick!

Let's look at some of the facts on the Gardasil vaccine and its dangers -- now forced upon children without consent.

Evidence shows HPV vaccines actually INCREASE the risk of precancerous lesions by 44.6% in some women

Links to just about every article out there on Gardasil vaccine and all its problems

Then, there's an interview posted online by a Merck employee that worked on the Gardasil vaccine. He claimed that the Gardasil vaccine was tainted with SV40 (monkey virus), cancer viruses, not to mention a collection of viruses that were not screened out of the vaccines. Coming from a Dr. who worked on the Merck vaccine to begin with.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So now I got to have something (laughter), you know that going to attract attention. And gee, I thought that damn SV40, I mean that damn vaculating agent that we have, I'm just going to pick that particular one, that virus has got to be in vaccines, it's got to be in the Sabin's vaccines so I quick tested it (laughter) and sure enough it was in there.

Read full interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman who worked on Gardasil that contends the Merck vaccine tainted with SV40 among other viruses

And they want to skip the parental consent and inject it into 12 year old girls (basically without the child's consent either).

Those people are sick. Just sick to pass a law like that about one of the most dangerous vaccines on the market!

so people in Cali have to teach their kids not to take candy, rides, and needles from strangers... God help us..

reply to post by MapMistress

Gosh that Gardisil vaccine is a dangerous one. To try and have school officials vaccinate the children with it (against their parents' wishes) is sick!

Here is the law. Perhaps you can find the provision which says that school officials can vaccinate children against parents' wishes. I can't.
www.leginfo.ca.gov...