Leukemia Argumentative Paper Stem Cell Research Argumentative Essay

Between families that have a choice to vaccinate and those that do not, those with no choice have the stronger claim to access. Finally, Part IV points out that if homeschooling is a legitimate educational option in California, then parents choosing to reject school requirements are not denied a choice. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies.We use cookies to offer you a better experience, personalize content, tailor advertising, provide social media features, and better understand the use of our services.Yet the , plaintiffs argued that the decision whether to place children with relatives—as opposed to placing them with unrelated families—should be subject to strict scrutiny.[31] The court rejected the application of strict scrutiny, reasoning that foster care placement is not an immutable trait.

Assembly Bill 2109[6] required parents to obtain the signature of a healthcare provider—broadly defined to include school nurses, certain naturopaths, and others, in addition to doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) and medical doctors (MDs)—attesting that the parents were given information about the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases before making the decision not to vaccinate their child.[7] This essentially constituted a requirement of .[8] In the year following AB 2109, the percentage of PBEs in kindergarten decreased by 19 percent (from 3.15 percent to 2.54 percent), but the overall immunization rates went up only slightly.[9] During the hearings, Senator Richard Pan explained that experience from Washington State suggests that while their informed refusal law initially decreased the rate of , that trend stalled.In other words, informed refusal laws do not sufficiently increase vaccination rates.[10] Under SB 277, children will only be able to attend school or daycare, public or private, if they either receive the immunizations required by law or obtain a medical exemption from the requirement from a licensed physician—meaning only MDs and DOs.[11] Children may also be conditionally accepted into a school or daycare program if they are in the process of completing a series of vaccinations.In other words, if parents wish to leave their children unvaccinated, absent an acknowledged medical reason to do so, they cannot send them to school or daycare. It should be remembered that SB 277 does not remove medical exemptions.We use cookies to make interactions with our website easy and meaningful, to better understand the use of our services, and to tailor advertising.For further information, including about cookie settings, please read our Cookie Policy .They will, however, have a variety of other options available. Children with valid medical reasons not to vaccinate are not required to vaccinate under the law.These options include homeschooling their children on their own or in collaboration with a few other families, or participating in certain independent study programs offered by public schools. In fact, limiting exemptions to these children should lead to higher immunization rates, better herd immunity, and better protection for them. Opponents of the bill and critics of vaccines fought (and continue to fight) vigorously against SB 277, sometimes with disturbing tactics.[12] One recurrent theme was that the bill is unconstitutional. This Essay does not address the claim that SB 277 violates the federal constitution, as this subject has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, and our jurisprudence is consistent in upholding school immunization requirements with no nonmedical exemptions.[13] Instead, I focus on the claim that the bill is unconstitutional under state law because it violates a child’s right to access public education, which has been acknowledged by the California Supreme Court to be a fundamental societal interest.[14] Part I explains why has never been used to limit the state’s ability to ensure the health and safety of children in schools; these are a precondition to education, and our jurisprudence treats them as such. What does subsequent jurisprudence teach us about . First, children intentionally unvaccinated do not constitute a suspect classification that may be entitled to strict scrutiny in the context of limiting access to education.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “Leukemia Argumentative Paper”