In 1999, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne made raising childhood immunization rates a central component of his first-year legislative agenda. He pushed a bill to create a statewide immunization registry. The measure sailed through the Senate 26-6. But his proposal ran into stiff opposition from House members, who protested the government's increasing dictatorial involvement in the family. So lawmakers amended the legislation to add provisions declaring that the new vaccination registry was to be strictly voluntary.
The amended bill passed the House 52-15, and picked up another five votes on its second trip through the Senate, clearing the chamber 33-1.
Today, if parents want their children included on the registry, it is up to those parents to get their children added to the database. Those in the database receive reminders about the next round of doctor-recommended vaccinations.
Fast forward to 2010. Lawmakers are revisiting the law written a decade ago. Sens. Patti Anne Lodge and John McGee are sponsoring legislation that would put every child into the immunization registry automatically unless parents declare, in writing, that they want out. Lodge, the chairman of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, said the move is intended to boost Idaho's childhood inoculation rates. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, about 54 percent (plus or minus 6.7 percent) of Idaho children receive their complete set of vaccinations -- lower than other states that have mandatory immunization or compulsory immunization registry laws.
The implication of putting the opt-out burden on parents is fairly obvious. Most parents won't take the actions they would need to be excluded from the registry. By law, parents will still be told that their participation in the registry is voluntary, but it's doubtful they'll be given much help or guidance if they decide they'd like to keep their kid out of the database.
A decision to remove the voluntary components to the state's immunization registry should raise enormous questions about parental rights, privacy and the scope of government -- largely the same questions that were raised in 1999 and were supposed to have been answered by use of words like "voluntary" which are now being stricken in the 2010 legislation.
The very fact that the Legislature is re-addressing the issue at all suggests that the government is dissatisfied with how parents have utilized to the voluntary immunization registry; because parents have responded in what the government deems to be an "incorrect" or "insufficient" way, the government's answer is to relieve the families of their right to either add or not add children to the registry.
Make no doubt about it: Government would be assuming the duties that now belong to parents and making what it perceives to be "a better choice" than that being made by Idaho parents today.
Whatever the intent behind the legislation, government's insistence on playing parent has to concern anyone who believes that the state has no business trying to substitute its judgment for that of Idaho's highly capable moms and dads.
Comments
Vax's do more harm then goodSubmitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/08/2010 - 12:27.
» - reply
Seriously... All you big brother advocates that want the nanny state forcefully injecting your kids, my kids and anything that moves with vaccines have lost your cotton picking mind! The state should have NO say in which doctor I go to or don't go to, whether I have or don't have insurance, and whether I wish to poison, oops I meant vaccinate my children with these harmful mercury shots or not. It is something that parents should decide after seriously studying the matters, not just taking a public poll to see what the masses are in favor of this week whether they have any specific knowledge on the topic or not. Visit W W W Vac Truth dot Com and discover the truth of the matter. See the film on Google Video Generation Rx amongst others. This is none of your business big brother. There are plenty of Idahoans that will not stand for this. This is Idaho. I wouldn't advise busting your way into our doors while foaming at the mouth to forcefully inject our children. Parents please, investigate this issue for yourself. You don't need anyone else forcing your views on the matter that typically have no information on it either, to include the police, law enforcement, your healthcare provider etc.
You guys some times need to be slappedSubmitted by MacArther (not verified) on Sat, 02/20/2010 - 15:30.
» - reply
here is the reality- a master immunization record isn't big brother, it isn't mothering-- it is good quality health practice. I have worked in public and private health for the last 30 years, we are the last of the major countries in the world not to have a central immunization data base let alone a state one.
Being able to access and know ones immunization records at a finger tip via a central data base is really a smart and good thing. As you age you forget things, if you have ever washed your wallet, moved or just accidentally thrown something away you can forget what immunizations you have actually had, where and when. If you ever need to get a pass port, do out of country travel or are in an outbreak it is hard to remember if you did have all three Twinrix shots, when your last tetanus shot was, or when you are grandparent if you remember if you had Tdap to keep from giving that new grand baby whopping cough(because adults not kids are the host of the disease) -It is important in todays world we look at and understand, that we are but mere hours away from the most exotic infections and diseases. That now more than ever we need to look at more comprehensive vaccination programs and management. AS the scope and knowledge of the immune system has changed and grown - we know that things we thought were life time vaccinations really do need a booster, that we need to be proactive in our health management-and to have the tools to do it. Immunization registries are cheap, and effective tools to keep the public health good. The stupid statement someone made by one of your editors about a prostate registry should be the example of your ignorance on the immunization issue. We have had a cancer registry in Idaho for the better part of two decades, that registry allows for the monitoring of cancers by zip code and type - always diligently looking for environmental cancer issues. I value my prostate(and the joy it helps bring), and if there were a registery we might find reasons for high rate of prostate problems or cancer to lead to a cure or preventive stance we should have one-- Just remember the immunization registry allows us to track and easily remember what we have been vaccinated against to help protect ourselves, families and friends and community-(obviously you have never had to remember what date your kid had what shot to keep them in school or to get them in sports or to enroll them in college)
Pick on things like state government purchasing rules and practices, or the fact that legislators get paid to not show up and do their elected duties...but don't pick on public health until you understand the real benefit. You are in a place of responsibility so don't make stupid statements- a lot of Idahoans are nothing but sheep who follow those who are smart enough to use a computer and post things whether they are intelligent or not. Don't be dorks (and yes I mean whale penis's) use this media for the betterment of man.
VaccinationsSubmitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/23/2010 - 00:09.
» - reply
Sorry, but your notion of the benefits are scant. I do not need the government to have any more power and influence over my healthcare or the healthcare of my children. While you are all sold on the state of our wonderful healthcare, you did not mention the scores of children who have been hurt by these vaccines you are so excited about. Yes, the gov't wants to help, yeah right. Ever heard of the H1N1 hoax? How about Gardasil, so, very essential for 10 year old girls. Our health care system has been corrupted by the money of big pharma. It's people or better said sheeple like you who think it's okay for us to surrender our rights to big intrusive government. You like the gov't up your prostate, which in of itself is overdiagnosed as cancer. You go right ahead buddy.
h1n1 scare, GardasilSubmitted by MacArther (not verified) on Tue, 02/23/2010 - 06:46.
» - reply
Sorry bub-
There was an h1n1 issue, I had the pleasure of attending a couple funerals related to it, Gardasil- while not perfect still offers a level of protection of safety against death causing cancers, and protects the innocent. Want to really worry about big gov? go after the cattle producers who use known cancer causing agents to fatten their pocket books. Public health is public health it is to benefit the public when the public is too stupid to get it...As is the case with most of the public today to see the reality and pass the conspiracy games. Because of Regan and his stupidity towards HIV we have an out of control disease now world wide -for fear of having frank discussions of sex and sexuality. The immunization registry is good responsible health. I suppose you don't think cars should be registered either ---
Idaho is second-last in theSubmitted by Vaccine_Maxine (not verified) on Fri, 02/19/2010 - 18:42.
» - reply
Idaho is second-last in the nation when it comes to getting its kids immunized. About 57 percent of them are properly inoculated, according to recent Centers for Disease Control data.
That’s not good. In fact, it’s quite bad.
The national average is 77 percent.
Two Canyon County lawmakers — Sen. Patti Anne Lodge of Nampa and Sen. John McGee of Caldwell — want to see more Idaho kids get immunized. To that end they have sponsored legislation that would change the state’s child immunization registry policy to get more kids on it.
The registry notifies parents when their children are due for immunizations and offers them the vaccinations.
Right now, parents have to request to have their children put on the statewide list. So parents who don’t know about it and would want to have their children added will miss out.
The bill put forth by Lodge and McGee would automatically put every Idaho child on the list. If parents don’t want their kids on it, they would be able to request to have their names removed.
The Legislature should pass this bill. It’s not an attempt to force kids to be immunized. It wouldn’t even force them to be notified when they should be getting shots. They could opt out any time they choose.
Ultimately, parents are still responsible for getting their children immunized. Even if they’re notified that it’s time to bring their children in for shots, they may decide to wait because the child is feeling ill. Parents may have concerns about autism and its relation to immunization. Whatever the concern, if they don’t want to do it, they still wouldn’t have to.
Idaho has a vested interest in raising its poor child immunization rate. Kids who aren’t properly immunized get sick more often, which costs the state and parents more money when they do become ill. Productivity also suffers. And kids who get sick spread their illness and make other people sick.
Odds are good this bill, if passed, would raise that immunization rate. If that means a few parents have to go to the “great inconvenience” of notifying the state they don’t want to be on the list, it’s well worth it.
Why? Just Why?Submitted by Walt Holton (not verified) on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 19:30.
» - reply
I am convinced the legislative session is too long. If we cut it to a week or so we could not only save money on salaries but also reduce the gradual tyranny professional lawmakers, sometimes un-wittingly, bring. John and Patty are both real good people, and I know they mean well, but do we really need this? Do we really need a texting while driving law? Do we really need a law to protect stray cats against bullets?
One step closer to a nanny state.
Post new comment