ktlight
14th June 2011, 09:13
FYI:
A current California bill, AB 499, would "allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease."[1] That is, children as young as 12 will be able to get a Gardasil or other STD vaccine without their parents' knowledge or consent if this bill passes. Disturbingly, North Carolina has a much broader child consent law already on the books: "Any minor may give effective consent . . . for medical health services for the prevention . . . of venereal disease and other [reportable] diseases..."[2] I call these laws "Stealth Vaccine Laws" because they provide for the administration of vaccines without the word "vaccine" or "immunization" appearing in the law. Thus, they may slip under the radar of anti-vaccine activists doing electronic searches for vaccine bills and laws using those terms.
There are serious legal and moral problems with stealth vaccine bills and laws. First, they violate parents' fundamental Constitutional rights. In Troxel v. Granville, 430 U.S. 57 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child." Troxel requires a "threshold showing of harm" that is lacking in the California bill and North Carolina law. Troxel also tells us that parents are presumed to be fit and to make decisions that are in their children's best interests. So, giving the children of every parent in the state the ability to consent to medical treatment at any time amounts to the state declaring that all parents are unfit regarding those matters to which the children are given authority to consent.
Under Troxel, parents are presumed to be fit unless there is a showing of unfitness. So, child consent laws violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, unless they include the requisite "threshold showing of harm." As a practical matter, this means that there must be an emergency, a significant harm or risk of harm before someone may make decisions on behalf of a child without a parent's consent. Medical and other professionals already have this authority. Neither children nor parents have to consent to a child's receiving treatment in a medical emergency where immediate intervention is needed to save the child's life or avert serious harm.
Proponents of child consent laws argue that there are some children who need the ability to consent to medical care, children whose parents can't or won't take proper care of them. But there are already measures in place to help children in those situations. State workers in Child Protective Services (CPS) and Social Services may seize custody of children when necessary to protect them from severe physical and/or emotional harm. And where parents are unfit, their fitness can be challenged and their parental authority given to other persons or agencies that are capable of exercising proper care of the children when they are not. If current laws are letting some children slip through the cracks, then by all means let's take steps to fix the problem, but enacting laws that violate the Constitutional rights of all parents is not a proper solution. It is, however, a rather convenient way for the pharmaceutical industry to bypass parents to administer vaccines and other therapies directly to children (who are not likely to say 'no' to a doctor). And while parents may opt out of unnecessary medical treatments for their child that they can't afford, child consent laws ensure payment for services every time--from the state.
There is a second, narrower Constitutional issue in states that offer a religious exemption to immunizations (every state but MS and WV). For legal purposes, a child's religious beliefs are deemed to be that of the parents. So, a law that would allow a child to consent to an immunization would violate parents' First Amendment "free exercise" of religion rights. It doesn't matter that few parents may actually be affected or that some children may accurately report their parents' religious objections to vaccines. The fact that the law creates a situation reasonably likely to result in a Constitutional violation is sufficient reason for a court to rule that the law is unconstitutional. (For that matter, in states that offer philosophical or medical exemptions, state exemption rights of the parents could be violated as well.)
source to read more
http://www.naturalnews.com/032691_vaccine_laws_consent.html
A current California bill, AB 499, would "allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease."[1] That is, children as young as 12 will be able to get a Gardasil or other STD vaccine without their parents' knowledge or consent if this bill passes. Disturbingly, North Carolina has a much broader child consent law already on the books: "Any minor may give effective consent . . . for medical health services for the prevention . . . of venereal disease and other [reportable] diseases..."[2] I call these laws "Stealth Vaccine Laws" because they provide for the administration of vaccines without the word "vaccine" or "immunization" appearing in the law. Thus, they may slip under the radar of anti-vaccine activists doing electronic searches for vaccine bills and laws using those terms.
There are serious legal and moral problems with stealth vaccine bills and laws. First, they violate parents' fundamental Constitutional rights. In Troxel v. Granville, 430 U.S. 57 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child." Troxel requires a "threshold showing of harm" that is lacking in the California bill and North Carolina law. Troxel also tells us that parents are presumed to be fit and to make decisions that are in their children's best interests. So, giving the children of every parent in the state the ability to consent to medical treatment at any time amounts to the state declaring that all parents are unfit regarding those matters to which the children are given authority to consent.
Under Troxel, parents are presumed to be fit unless there is a showing of unfitness. So, child consent laws violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, unless they include the requisite "threshold showing of harm." As a practical matter, this means that there must be an emergency, a significant harm or risk of harm before someone may make decisions on behalf of a child without a parent's consent. Medical and other professionals already have this authority. Neither children nor parents have to consent to a child's receiving treatment in a medical emergency where immediate intervention is needed to save the child's life or avert serious harm.
Proponents of child consent laws argue that there are some children who need the ability to consent to medical care, children whose parents can't or won't take proper care of them. But there are already measures in place to help children in those situations. State workers in Child Protective Services (CPS) and Social Services may seize custody of children when necessary to protect them from severe physical and/or emotional harm. And where parents are unfit, their fitness can be challenged and their parental authority given to other persons or agencies that are capable of exercising proper care of the children when they are not. If current laws are letting some children slip through the cracks, then by all means let's take steps to fix the problem, but enacting laws that violate the Constitutional rights of all parents is not a proper solution. It is, however, a rather convenient way for the pharmaceutical industry to bypass parents to administer vaccines and other therapies directly to children (who are not likely to say 'no' to a doctor). And while parents may opt out of unnecessary medical treatments for their child that they can't afford, child consent laws ensure payment for services every time--from the state.
There is a second, narrower Constitutional issue in states that offer a religious exemption to immunizations (every state but MS and WV). For legal purposes, a child's religious beliefs are deemed to be that of the parents. So, a law that would allow a child to consent to an immunization would violate parents' First Amendment "free exercise" of religion rights. It doesn't matter that few parents may actually be affected or that some children may accurately report their parents' religious objections to vaccines. The fact that the law creates a situation reasonably likely to result in a Constitutional violation is sufficient reason for a court to rule that the law is unconstitutional. (For that matter, in states that offer philosophical or medical exemptions, state exemption rights of the parents could be violated as well.)
source to read more
http://www.naturalnews.com/032691_vaccine_laws_consent.html