You're missing the point. If little Sara or Bobby's parents had them vaccinated they won't get it either.
You are required to have your children vaccinated if you want the state benefit of a free education.
Wrong. Vaccines in children throughout the years have been used to erradicate quickly spreading diseases that do indeed effect the health of the populace. I don't understand why you said that as it has nothing to do with my argument. If you chose to have your child protected you'd have that choice just as I could chose to not have my child protected. The fact of the matter is if you want your kids to go to public school or even private state licensed daycare which is probably a better example because they state requires that all daycare facilities be licensed and that all children must be vaccinated; the state says they HAVE to be protected. You don't abide by state rules concerning the health of your children, you don't get state benefits and can't even get some private. We're both saying the same thing.And I agree with this position. Because you do still have a choice. It may not be a choice one would like, but you still have a choice. If you don't want to vaccinate your kid, then you get to homeschool.
The state requires children to be in child seats in the car. The state is requiring you to do something to potentially preserve the life of your child. Stupid law. Not that putting a child in a carseat is stupid, it just goes back to the Nanny State. It wouldn't effect me because I would put my kid in a carseat, but it is still the government overstepping its bounds. A better option would be for a car insurance company to write it into their contract for car insurance. A private contract between an individual and their insurance company. Not the Nanny State.
The point is you can't say that the state can mandate somethings and not others. My point is, that the State should not be permitted to mandate any of it. I am fully opposed to government intervention in to individual choices when those choices in no way effect the population as a whole. Make sense?
And, she's done what regarding that issue as governor of Alaska?
plenty, google is your friend. but i don't expect you to do your research since you only go to bias sources.
That's right, she believes in something, but has a different view of law. (incorrect - it's a matter of getting laws passed, she's been unsuccessful) She's demonstrated that by being one of the few governors to order same-gendered relationships receive identical health care as married folk in her state government. (actually, they were there before Palin took office - she attempted to remove those benefits that were granted by the Alaska Supreme Court, but the vote failed) (kind of an inconvinient truth for your opinion of her, don't you think?
Besides, you were comparing the idea of pro-life and pro-choice, not Palin. Why don't you accept the mother's right to choose in THIS case?
You don't get it, do you? I support the child being allowed to live. A 13 year old kid is not the same as an unborn fetus.IIRC, there are laws against late-term abortions.
Hmmm, I googled, and found this:
On gay rights, you are again wrong. Alaska's Supreme Court ruled the benefits had to be instated. The legislature tried to stop it from being implemented with new law, Palin overturned said law attempt with a VETO.
pssst Read the linksThat's it?
See me in Blue.
You have the option to homeschool.
Like it or not whichever way you try to turn the government is telling you what you can and can not do with your children. You've quietly accpeted and not even considered it until it was brought to your attention. You accepted that the rules in place where ok and good. The rules are in place for idiots like this woman. I for one am not all THAT concerned with what you call the "nanny" state, I'm not an idiot or a deviant so common sense rules really are no bother to me.
Homeschooling = mandated by the state.
I have not "quietly accepted anything. If the government, or anybody else for that matter, infringes upon my right as a parent to do what I feel is right for MY child, then I'm certainly not going to stand by and just accept it. I've fought for both of my kids on numerous occassions when my rights and their rights have been infringed upon.
You are fine with "the rules" until those rules start encroaching even more and more. You are fine with them when they don't neccessarily effect you. I'm not of the mindset of ignoring government encroachment until it effects me. By then it will be to late.
Everyone thinks they are a good parent and their choices are sound. For each and every parent who thinks that there is another parent who can look at your life and your children and find an area where they feel that you are negligent. Do you really want to open the door to allow the government to make that determination and decision for you? Do you want a judge telling you that your kid needs to go on Ritilan? Do you want a judge to tell you that your child is of the age to have sex, so they now require an HPV vaccine?
If you can't see any of this being an eventuality due to the incessant and continual encroachment of government into everyone's right as a parent, then you are blind.
You don't have to agree with the choices this family has made, but if you don't eventually want your own choices questioned and over ridden, then you'd better wake up and stop shoving your head in the sand thinking that nothing like this could ever happen to you. Sure the woman is a freaking moron, but I'm sorry, you can't legislate common sense, and you most certainly can't save everyone.
The question was what she's done about it as governor.
