News that President-elect Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. met on Tuesday rang alarm bells throughout the scientific community, because both have aggressively promoted discredited anti-vaccination theories. Here are the debunked theories they espouse, and what the science actually says. THE CLAIM: That the high number of vaccines given to young children can overwhelm their…
1 thought on “Trump, Kennedy, and the real science of vaccines”
Comments are closed.
A Voice for Choice issued this news release:
A Voice For Choice, Inc. Releases Statement Regarding Lawsuit Filed to Challenge California’s Extensive Vaccine Mandates
Critical Hearing Scheduled for Friday in Case Challenging California’s Strictest-in-the-Nation Vaccine Laws
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA, January 12, 2017 – A federal judge has scheduled a hearing at 10 am on Friday, 13 January 2017 in Courtroom 8C at 350 West 1st Street in Los Angeles to consider the request to enjoin Senate Bill 277 (2015) by a group of plaintiffs led by A Voice for Choice, Inc. SB 277 required kindergartners to get twenty-five doses of different vaccines – including for a sexually transmitted disease – before they can attend school. Public education is a fundamental right under the California Constitution.
The case, Love v. California, hinges on the doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions – that the government cannot force citizens to give up one constitutional right to exercise another. For example, police can’t force citizens to submit to metal detectors just to attend a protest. That would force citizens to give up their right to be free from unreasonable searches, just to exercise their right to assemble.
Friday’s hearing will occur just days after the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit under the same doctrine to block a Kentucky law that requires women to undergo an ultrasound before terminating a pregnancy. In that suit, the ACLU argues that the state cannot force a woman to give up her constitutional right to refuse medical treatment if she wants to exercise her constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Similarly, in this suit, the plaintiffs argue that the state cannot force students to give up their constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, if they want to exercise their constitutional right to attend school.
This case is also particularly notable because the state of California, in defense of SB 277, has repeatedly cited a century-old Supreme Court decision (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) that was relied on to allow eugenic sterilization of those who the government deemed unfit, which shocks the modern conscience:
Unlike previous suits, this lawsuit does not argue science or vaccines. Instead, it focuses on purely constitutional principles. “This case raises real questions about where we as a society will draw the line when it comes to allowing governmental intrusions into our private lives,” said Christina Hildebrand, Founder of A Voice for Choice. “At its core, a vaccine is just an injected, preventative form of medicine. Most Americans do not think the government should be able to tell us what medicines to take.”
The case, Love v. the State of California, was filed in federal court in the Central District of California. The Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which contains all of the information on the principles and cases discussed in this release, is here http://avoiceforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016.12.08.Preliminary-Injunction.Filed_.pdf. The main content begins on page four of the brief, page 12 of the PDF. All files pertaining to the case can be accessed here http://www.avoiceforchoice.org/sb277-litigation/).