I found this article advocating that parents who don’t vaccinate their kids be subject to criminal charges or civil sanctions.
The article makes a good point. Anti–vaxxers are a threat to public health. There are certain people, such as those with weakened immune systems, or the extremely young, who cannot take them. Those people are therefore dependent on herd immunity to avoid getting sick and possibly dying. Anti–vaxxers therefore are potentially giving a disease to people who might die from it.
And people who (falsely) think vaccinations cause autism are either outright malicious or haven’t thought through to the logical consequences of their beliefs. I mean, vaccines prevent deadly diseases. And by refusing vaccinations for their children, they are in effect choosing a greater risk of dying over (according to their beliefs) a lower chance of autism. In other words, they’d rather their kid die than get autism. Do those people even know what they’re saying about themselves?
So yes, there should be no “philosophical” or religious exemptions for vaccinations, and refusers should be criminally charged. Anti–vaxxers are a threat to themselves and others, and in this respect are clearly unfit parents.
And while we’re at this, can we also treat refusals of newborn screening and choosing faith healing over modern medicine for dependent children? Far too many children have ended up dead because of this.
This one apparently came from, of all places, Christy Clark’s radio show:
[By not getting vaccinated, w]hy do you want to risk giving it [H1N1 flu] to someone who might die from it?
Not like this is unexpected, but a new literature review published in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry has asked a question— whether “there is an abortion trauma syndrome”— and has found an answer: No.
The review showed that studies that showed a causal link between elective abortion and mental disorders had problems with methodology, including failures to account for confounding variables and issue with sample selection. The conclusion was that, “…The most consistent predictor of mental disorders after abortion remains preexisting disorders, which, in turn, are strongly associated with exposure to sexual abuse and intimate violence. Educating researchers, clinicians, and policymakers how to appropriately assess the methodological quality of research about abortion outcomes is crucial….” (emphasis added).
In other words, the most likely women to have mental health problems after an abortion are those who have preexisting mental health problems before an abortion.
Hence, with this additional evidence, anti-choicers cannot claim that any sort of “abortion trauma” (or “post-abortion”) syndrome exists. To continue to claim otherwise would be just like Wag the Dog; where in the film political operatives invent a war for political purposes, in this case it would be anti-choicers inventing a mental disorder for political purposes. Hence, if they were really desiring to improve women’s mental health, they would stop shouting at, harassing, and hurling invective at women, and would instead work to prevent rape and sexual harassment.
Hat tip to Serena Freewomyn.
As Yahoo reported yesterday, a recent peer-reviewed systematic review out of John Hopkins University has determined that the so-called ‘post-abortion syndrome’ does not exist. In addition, they concluded that “Scientists are still conducting research to answer politically motivated questions,” and that “policy decisions should not distort science to advance political agendas.”
Something tells me that forced-birthers and fetus fanatics will dispute this and continue their deny and use junk studies attitude towards this. Too bad there’s no such thing as ‘Post-debunking of Political Junk Science Syndrome’.
In the coming years, there will be a shortage of obstetricians in Canada, CTV reports. This is bad because pregnancy is stressful and dangerous for the mother. In addition, reproductive rights will become irrelevant if there is no one to help/allow women to exercise them.