California Now Wants to be First State to Mandate Adult Vaccines – Criminal Penalties

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

So we have to comply to your lifestyle choice? How about you don't force the business to accept a choice you made.

Uhhhhh . . .

like bakers baking cakes . . . or not . . . for gays?

a reply to: Informer1958

So quote the same place that is blatantly lying about your op....

a reply to: BO XIAN

Yes that would be the point I was getting at.
It isn't a comparison at all but I read those lines countless times by the same people that complain about this type of thing.

a reply to: Sremmos80

So quote the same place that is blatantly lying about your op....

Apparently you lack any understanding to where any of this is going.

a reply to: Informer1958

No I get it, you are begging the question and presenting a slippery slope as the out come of this bill. You started off with a lie and are now trying to justify it by asking if any one really believes this is where it ends. Then backed it up by posting something from the same source you started all this with.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You started off with a lie

What is the lie I told?

This bill eliminates medical autonomy, crushes religious freedom, undermines personal freedom, and burdens quality providers with a non-optional series of medical interventions in the form of mandated vaccines that are not even 100% effective.

What part of my Topic that you don't understand?

a reply to: Informer1958

Well the criminal charges is the first, and the second is that you continue to leave out that it for people working in a specific field.

What part of that do you not understand?

Th bill does nothing that you listed either.

originally posted by: Informer1958

Lets see all the politician take the shots first following by all medical professionals, I think not!

Don't know how California does it, but pretty much everyone I know who's a doctor or nurse had to either show proof of vaccinations, have titers tested and get REvaccinated if they didn't have a sufficient antibody titer or both.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Phage

The problem is that they are messing with people's ability to make a living unless they comply.

Very few hospitals will permit you to work without a current influenza vaccination now.

It's either the jab or you wear a mask every minute you're at work.

a reply to: Bedlam
Like this?

(2) The person submits a written statement from a licensed physician providing that the person has evidence of current immunity to the diseases described in subdivision (a).

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam
Like this?

(2) The person submits a written statement from a licensed physician providing that the person has evidence of current immunity to the diseases described in subdivision (a).

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov...

Yep. This is nothing that's not already being done in hospitals. They're just pushing it to day care.

a reply to: Sremmos80

This bill eliminates medical autonomy, crushes religious freedom, undermines personal freedom, and burdens quality providers with a non-optional series of medical interventions in the form of mandated vaccines that are not even 100% effective.

Th bill does nothing that you listed either.

It doesn't?

That is your "opinion", and good luck if you have a Day Care Center and decided not to take any of the shots because you have no religious freedom, or just the right to say no.

Even though it has now been proven that many of the vaccines have toxins that can later kill you.

I never told a lie in my OP. You believe you are calling me out like page tried to do, however both of you are wrong in your "assumptions" towards my OP.

You do have the right to your "opinions", however I do not agree with them.

a reply to: Informer1958

From the OP (ignoring the clickbait title):

Now, legislators in California want to pass the “first US adult vaccine mandate with NO personal exemptions and CRIMINAL penalties for failure to comply.”

1) The law has passed. It became law last year. It will go into effect in September.

2) There is no mandate for adults to be vaccinated. There is law that licensed day care facilities cannot employ people who are not vaccinated against three particular diseases (or are not excluded.)

3) There are no criminal penalties for not being vaccinated.

Three lies in the OP.

Even though it has now been proven that many of the vaccines have toxins that can later kill you.

False.

Even though it has now been proven that many of the vaccines have toxins that can later kill you

No it hasn't...

And you still have the right to say no, just not if you want run a licensed day care.
Was wrong about the religious exemptions.

I never told a lie in my OP. You believe you are calling me out like page tried to do, however both of you are wrong in your "assumptions" towards my OP

Then show the criminal penalties or where you are forced to take this outside of working in the specified field. That is the only way your OP holds up.

a reply to: Sremmos80

No religious exemption.

a reply to: Phage

Ah my mistake, read that wrong. Thank you for the correction.

a reply to: Informer1958

Bring it, Ca.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Phage

I gather you see no incrementalism hazards in such things.

AT what point would you begin to feel aversive toward such moves, laws, strategies?

Do you even have a theoretical line in the sand?

I have an infant daughter. When she goes into childcare, it is not unreasonable for her not to be exposed to adults who have not been vaccinated.

There is no law stating anyone has to be vaccinated, but if you want to work in a childcare facility, that is a prerequisite to employment.

I can't see anything nefarious there, rather it's protecting children from exposure to unvaccinated adults.

a reply to: cuckooold

I can't see anything nefarious there, rather it's protecting children from exposure to unvaccinated adults.

Actually, it's a matter of reducing the chances of children (groups of them) to be exposed to adults who are infected with influenza, pertussis, or measles. Or any combination thereof.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about unvaccinated adults. It's just that they are a lot more likely to get sick than vaccinated ones.

In a way it's like Section 1596.871 of the law:

(A) If the State Department of Social Services finds that the applicant or any other person specified in subdivision (b) has been convicted of a crime, other than a minor traffic violation, the application shall be denied, unless the director grants an exemption pursuant to subdivision (f).

There is nothing inherently dangerous about an adult who has been convicted of a crime, but it certainly should be a matter of concern and deserves close scrutiny for a position which is directly related to the safety of children.

a reply to: cuckooold

It's a complex set of issues.

Some vaccines seem to have no problems associated with them.

Some do.

How to filter out the facts from the noise on both sides of the issues is a real challenge.

In such a situation . . . I think it makes sense to be wary and cautious.

The propaganda from the government and big pharma . . . is not impressive, to me.

However, we can expect the government to be increasingly tyrannical across the board in all spheres of life.

And that, imho, has to be resisted wholesale whenever possible.

So, when to resist and when to comply is very tricky to discern.

But to just roll over and play dead and comply with tyrannical, arbitrary stuff--even in this kind of medical situation, is not wise, to me.

I don't think there are any pat answers.