
California Senate overwhelmingly passes SB 277, abolishing most opt-outs - obeone
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_28115461/bill-restricting-vaccine-exemptions-overwhelmingly-passes-state-senate
======
jawns
I'm interested to learn about the case law about this as it pertains to the
constitutionality of disallowing a religious exemption.

Some common vaccines are derived from human fetal cell lines, and those fetal
cell lines are themselves derived from a handful of elective abortions. For
many of those vaccines, there are alternatives that are not derived from human
fetal cell lines, but not all.

Several religious denominations that oppose abortion, e.g. the Catholic
Church, have addressed this issue and said that such vaccines can and should
be used, so long as there is no reasonable alternative and there is a
proportionate reason. (The Church's reasoning, in case you're curious, is that
the vaccines' connection to abortion is considered remote cooperation.)

But even though some denominations see the vaccines as permissible, I suppose
it might be possible for a person, motivated by religious belief, to be
completely on board with the efficacy of the vaccine but oppose how it was
created on moral grounds, and so demand a religious exemption.

Typically in the U.S., religious beliefs must be reasonably accommodated. I
would think that someone who objects to the vaccine mandate on religious
grounds could make the argument that if it is possible for _anyone_ to be
accommodated (in this case, those with medical issues), then accommodation
itself should be considered reasonable, and it's just a matter of determining
whether accommodating both is so risky as to be unreasonable.

In other words, if we're willing to assume X amount of risk by allowing
medical exemptions, then it follows that at least _some_ risk can be
tolerated. And if a religious objector can show that additionally assuming Y
risk by allowing religious objections is not substantially more risky, then I
think they could make the case that it should be considered reasonable to also
accommodate religious beliefs.

~~~
rlpb
Permitting a small number of exemptions does not compromise hive immunity.
Permitting a large number of exceptions does. The article states an objective
example of where hive immunity was compromised due to a lack of vaccination.
So there is sound scientific reasoning for disallowing religious exemption for
public health reasons.

In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this
child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is
administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an
increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I
don't want the vaccine to be administered").

It might even be reasonable to permit a small quota of religious objections,
so that the total number of exceptions does not compromise hive immunity. But
then how would it be decided which children would not be permitted in this
group?

The other option would be to simply ban children not vaccinated for religious
reasons from the ability to spread disease by excluding them from schools.
This seems to be the proposition made already though:

> "I am concerned about opportunities for equal education," because
> unvaccinated kindergarteners would require home schooling, Bates said.

~~~
jawns
> In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg.
> "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is
> administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an
> increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I
> don't want the vaccine to be administered").

It's true that a child immunized against a religious objection won't be
physically harmed, but I think that many people who have been forced to do
things against their religious objections will tell you that the emotional
harm of being forced to violate their religious beliefs is substantial. (Which
is why there have been numerous cases throughout history of people who have
died rather than violate their faith.)

I know comparing physical harm to emotional harm is hard to do, but I think
it's worth pointing out that the "what's the harm?" argument requires a more
nuanced understanding of what both sides feel is at stake than is typically
considered.

------
bluehazed
> "The only thing we can do is continue to educate our officials" about the
> personal belief exemption, said Lisa Bakshi, a mother from Placer County.
> "The parents who do it now do it for very legitimate reasons. We don't do it
> because we are uninformed."

This isn't being uninformed, it's being _actively_ uninformed.

------
ChuckMcM
I certainly hope this makes it past the Assembly and into law. I am stunned at
how rancorous the debate has been though. If I ever questioned if there was a
problem with science education, that question has been soundly answered. Way
too many people are getting through our primary education system with
absolutely no understanding of how science, as a process and discipline works.
And that is a very sad thing indeed.

~~~
mc32
It's astounding how the more educated and affluent areas are the ones with the
highest level of exemptions. So its not so much as science education, but
people's disconnect between science in theory and how it's applied in real
life.

It's not the middle class or lower middle class and poor who opt out the most
but upper middle and wealthy out of irrational fear.

But yes, glad this loophole gets closed.

~~~
rlpb
> It's astounding how the more educated and affluent areas are the ones with
> the highest level of exemptions.

Not necessarily. There's also a tragedy of the commons here. If all children
but mine are vaccinated, then my child is the safest, since I avoid both
disease risk and vaccination risk.

So it can actually be rational to not vaccinate on an individual basis,
depending on the state of vaccinations in the population. (On the other hand
it is also rational to support a law forcing everything to vaccinate, since
that fixes the tragedy by fiat).

~~~
mc32
What vaccination risk are you referring to, other than people with identified
risk, immune deficiency, ec. There is no risk posed by vaccinations.

One other point, is while a local population might be vaccinated, you don't
know who is coming in and out, i.e. going through town, one of those could be
carrying the disease, so it's still irrational.

------
outworlder
Perhaps now people will stop calling it a 'controversy'? That word makes it
the concerns seem legitimate.

There is no such 'controversy' in Brazil, for instance. The vaccination
programs have been very successful. Several life-threatening diseases were
greatly reduced or even eradicated, no matter how poor the region. We did have
a revolt, in 1904
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Revolt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Revolt))

Vaccines are one of the humankind's greatest accomplishments. To avoid
vaccinations due to fuzzy "religious grounds" is to turn the clock backwards
at least a century.

------
jakeogh
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
[http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html](http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html)

------
istvan__
Great news, this means the vaccination numbers can go back to the western
world level in the LA private schools.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/wealthy-
la...](http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/wealthy-la-schools-
vaccination-rates-are-as-low-as-south-sudans/380252/)

------
walterbell
What are the 10 vaccines being mandated?

~~~
sigzero
(1) Diphtheria. (2) Hepatitis B. (3) Haemophilus influenzae type b. (4)
Measles. (5) Mumps. (6) Pertussis (whooping cough). (7) Poliomyelitis. (8)
Rubella. (9) Tetanus. (10) Varicella (chickenpox).

[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277)

~~~
apendleton
For what it's worth, this actually ends up being fewer than ten distinct kinds
of inoculations, as 1, 6, and 9 are typically combined as the DTaP/TDaP
vaccine, and 4, 5, and 8 are combined as the MMR vaccine. Some do need
boosters, though, so I imagine it comes out in the wash.

------
ermintrude
It's about time we stop giving religious beliefs any special treatment at all
compared to actual measurable evidence (e.g. inhumanely killing animals,
mutilating/indoctrinating children, etc.).

~~~
xacaxulu
Or tax exempt status for teaching nonsense pseudoscience.

------
mapgrep
Just FYI, this is an inaccurate headline ("No More Vaccine Exemptions:
California Senate Overwhelmingly Passes SB 277").

"No More Vaccine Exemptions" will be true only IF this passes the Assembly,
where it faces a tougher fight. (Then the governor must sign it, but this is
expected to happen.)

(I wish HN headlines about politics were half as accurate as the technical
ones. See also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9276841](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9276841))

~~~
dang
If you see an inaccurate headline you can always email us
(hn@ycombinator.com). We change those all the time, but there are too many
comments posted here for us to see them all.

------
paulhauggis
"The science is clear: Vaccines are safe and efficacious."

Nothing is 100% safe. So when they say something like this, it's pretty scary.
I don't think it's causing autism, but some people do have ill effects due to
vaccines.

~~~
cwp
Ah, excellent. Taking a more nuanced view than the simple binary "safe" or
"not safe".

Let's continue down that path. Since nothing is 100% safe, we ought to choose
the _most_ safe option. And since we're talking about government policy here,
it's not about what's safest for your kids, but what's safest for everyone. So
what's safer, vaccines, or measles?

I think rlpb had it right elsewhere in thread - this is about a tragedy of the
commons. Anti-vaxxers don't want to ban vaccines, they want to be the only
ones not taking them.

~~~
paulhauggis
"So what's safer, vaccines, or measles?"

This isn't the point. The point is that from this ruling, a person would
assume that it's completely safe with no chance of any ill effects. I've even
seen a few posts saying that any ill effects are "old wives tales".

Here is a good list:

[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-
effects.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm)

From the CDC, which is a good source. Some of these could cause serious
problems.

"Anti-vaxxers don't want to ban vaccines, they want to be the only ones not
taking them."

Who said anything about anti-vaxxers?

If people in this world are foolish enough to believe that the things Dr. OZ
talks about on his show will cure something (I watched the show many times and
he has never actually said this), this ruling is pretty dangerous.

~~~
__z
>that from this ruling...this ruling is pretty dangerous.

A piece of legislation that hasn't even passed yet is not the same thing as a
court ruling.

~~~
paulhauggis
"California Senate overwhelmingly passes SB 277..."

I guess you missed this part?

~~~
__z
>I guess you missed this part?

No.

It is a bill that passed in the Senate. It still has to pass in the Assembly
to become law.

Not a court ruling and not yet a law.

------
wehadfun
I see a lot of pro vax people here. (Wonder how many of you actually have
children less than 2 years old). Anyway here are some things that concerned
me:

1\. "Vaccines are safe" \- The U.S. has the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program [1]. In short it pays people who are hurt by vaccines. If
vaccines are so safe why is this program needed?

2\. "We had these vaccines as Kids" \- The vaccine injury program made vaccine
manufactures not be liable for injuries cause by their vaccine. This happened
in 1988. "Since 1988, the U.S. childhood immunization schedule has rapidly
expanded"[2]. In you are older than 28 you did NOT receive a lot of these
vaccines as a kid.

There is a whole lot more but I don't feel like writing a book.

[1][http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html](http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html)
[2][http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038256.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038256.htm)

~~~
centrinoblue
I hesitate to reply here but some additional points to consider (esp. re item
11 in the list of vax): \- exponential growth in the number of vaccines over
time \- non-leathal nature of some of the newer vaccinees i.e common flu
(scope creep) \- concerns around the early age to be injecting so many foriegn
substances (monkey genes) at the same time \- trust in a for-profit medical
system (revolving door governance) \- science is not perfect \- mandatory
medical procedures should be viewed as a slippery slope \- no-one died in the
Disneyland outbreak \- perspective: "in 2011, outbreaks resulted in over
30,000 cases, 7 deaths" [http://shotofprevention.com/2015/01/22/disneyland-
measles-ou...](http://shotofprevention.com/2015/01/22/disneyland-measles-
outbreak-should-you-be-concerned/)

"Season’s failed flu shot raises questions about immunization program"
[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-
fitness/healt...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-
fitness/health/seasons-failed-flu-shot-raises-questions-about-immunization-
program/article22730631/)

~~~
__z
The common flu is non-lethal? _Facepalm_

Flu deaths are hard to measure but "CDC estimates that from the 1976-1977
season to the 2006-2007 flu season, flu-associated deaths ranged from a low of
about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people." \-
[http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-
related_deaths.h...](http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-
related_deaths.htm)

Furthermore, I personally know one of those people killed by the flu.

------
jessriedel
This article survives on HN because it strokes people'e scientific literacy
egos and lets them feel outraged and/or look down on others. This is not of
sufficient intellectual interest to warrant being on the front page.

~~~
nosideeffects
Maybe a lot of people are interested in the science of ego-stroking.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Science has been growing a strange ego-stroking pop culture faction of late,
and it's fairly worrying. It's certainly not an attitude that's actually going
to improve anything. All it does is serve to create deeper divides that are
even harder to bridge. People just dig in their heels.

I'm sure it's emotionally satisfying for people in some way, but I've come to
a place where such an attitude significantly lowers my opinion of the person
wielding it.

