Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Injunction against CA vaccine law denied

  1. #1
    Where's the horse? Nikki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    N. California
    Posts
    25,151
    Rep Power
    175196

    Injunction against CA vaccine law denied

    A federal judge declined to put California’s controversial vaccination law on pause Friday, denying an injunction request that would have allowed families to keep claiming personal-belief exemptions while a legal fight against the new statute continues in court.

    The ruling, made by U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego, means that all kindergarteners and seventh graders in public and private schools across the state must prove they are fully inoculated against 10 different diseases, from diphtheria to tetanus, unless they have a medical exemption form signed by a licensed doctor.

    On July 1 a coalition of parents and other organizations, including three from San Diego, sued the state, claiming that the law, SB 277, violated their constitutional rights to an equal public education and to their rights of free exercise of religion. There are also two other pending lawsuits against the law, both filed by parents in Los Angeles. The San Diego case is the first to have an injunction hearing and decision.
    link
    Mom to Taylor (22), Katie (19), Ben (16) & Grace (13)


  2. #2
    Real American™ nam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    23,322
    Rep Power
    122749
    Good. The denial of an injunction means the judge doesn't feel the anti-vaxxers will prevail.

  3. #3
    Real American™ nam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    23,322
    Rep Power
    122749
    The religious freedom arguments here will have a tougher hurdle to clear than the Hobby Lobby case. For example, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to state law. In all likelihood, the case will be argued on First Amendment grounds. Therefore we are looking at pre-RFRA rulings. The late Justice Scalia ruled that it is not a violation of the first amendment for the government to ban certain behavior when the law is generally applicable.

    This law does not single out a particular denomination or faith, nor does it deal with a uniquely religious act. So, the plaintiffs aren't likely to prevail there. The state has a compelling interest in madating vaccinations, so they get much more leeway than they woukd in other cases. The constitutional right to equal public education seems like a stretch to me as well. You are consciously choosing to neglect meeting this requirement.

    I would be shocked if this case won.,

  4. #4
    Nihongo dame desu villanelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    12,342
    Rep Power
    315525
    Good. Kids in CA remain a bit safer. Of course, I am sure there are nutter doctors who will write up medical exemptions, but presumably those will be a bit more difficult to find at least. I think that kids (and adults) who aren't vaxxed and don't have a true medical reason should be allowed to be banned from all sorts of places, frankly. I've got a pretty extreme stance on this.

  5. #5
    Full Sponsor RealCranky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ohio - the Cloudy State
    Posts
    29,428
    Rep Power
    186207
    Me, too. Your right to be an idiot doesn't trump my right (and my grandbaby's right) not to be exposed to serious yet preventable diseases.
    nesha ;-)


    Down with the Tsar!
    Time to storm the Winter Palace...

  6. #6
    argh Nansel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Canuckistan
    Posts
    25,259
    Rep Power
    268986
    Three of my nieces had babies this spring/summer. Two of them were high fiving each other on Facebook on their kids' first vaccine days. The other one? Well, her mother (my brother's wife), stuck her nose in on my sister's dd page and tried to tell her she needed to examine the "other side" of vaccinating, and left a link to some stupid "documentary" about the dangers.

    That niece's (my sister's dd) baby was 7 weeks early and spent over a month in NICU, and saw two unvaccinated babies struggling for life with whooping cough and one wasn't expected to live. Plus she talked to the docs and pediatricians. She had no doubt about vaccinating her daughter. She went on a big rant in response to her aunt, telling her about her experiences and that she was very comfortable with her decision, thankyouverymuch. It was cool seeing her slap her down so quickly, and I privately told her so.

    I feel sorry for my other niece, because you know her mom is telling her all about the "other side"

  7. #7
    Vicious Trollop Kimm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Really crack-a-lackin language master
    Posts
    45,489
    Rep Power
    377267
    Quote Originally Posted by RealCranky View Post
    Me, too. Your right to be an idiot doesn't trump my right (and my grandbaby's right) not to be exposed to serious yet preventable diseases.
    Amen. I don't have a lot of strong opinions on many things. I do feel strongly about this one though. I think it's because I find the anti-vax stance to be extremely dumb and based on ridiculously faulty logic. I admit that it makes me respect people less when they spout that insanity. It's just not that bright.

  8. #8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •