California has passed the controversial SB18 bill, allowing state authorities to enter unvaccinated children’s homes in order to assess the child’s safety.
SB18 is a law that forces parents to adhere to and comply with the government’s definition of what is “appropriate” practice when it comes to raising children. Failure to comply with “appropriate” practises, including going against “evidence-based” medical recommendations, can put parents at risk of losing their children.
At first blush, the amendments’ defining details of SB18 — which is being pushed by Big Pharma whipping boy Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) — appear altruistic in nature, utilizing language that attempts to swaddle political overreach in soothing terms like “child bill of rights.” However when taking a closer look, the amendments contain strangely redundant policy that seems to be seeking laws for innocuous rights that already exist, which begs the question, what is the real purpose for this legislation?
For example, section 1 defines the “right for a child’s parents to obtain employment opportunities that promote healthy balance between work and life.” While an obvious statement, are laws currently on the books that do NOT allow parents to promote healthy balance between work and life? Do we really need a law that says this, and does it mean that the state of California will have the right to decide if your job is acceptable enough for you to parent your children?
Moreover, the repeated use of the term “evidence-based” guidelines suggest if parents don’t follow their guidelines they will fall under scrutiny via “home visitation programs.” While the amendments use the term “voluntary” to describe participation in these said visitation programs, what happens if you don’t agree to do so? Why is Jim Steyer to decide the standards which will take away the rights of parents to make decisions about their lives and the lives of their children? These are the very serious questions that are going unanswered.
One section in particular that is especially alarming is section 1c, which is as follows:
The rights of a child’s parents to access evidence-based, voluntary home visitation programs such as comprehensive, coordinated home services that are offered to support positive parenting and improve outcomes for families including: improved maternal and child health, prevention of child injuries, child abuse and maltreatment and reduction of emergency department visits, improvement in school readiness and achievement, reduction in crime or domestic violence, improvements in family economic self-sufficiency and improvements in the coordination and referrals for other community resources and support.
Although it is written in legalistic language it is easy to see exactly what Steyer, Pan & company are really saying: Parents must, because a child has rights, allow authorities to implement home visitations to assess living conditions in order to implement medical/educational/occupational and technological standards coordinated with multiple agencies in order to ensure that parents comply with standards as set forth by the state.
“This legislation is frightening on so many levels, and is especially horrific to members of the vaccine-injured community,” said Michelle Ford, President and founder of the Vaccine Injury Awareness League (www.V-IAL.org).
“To imply that parents may have to submit to an in-home visitation program because they may be seeking an alternative to ‘evidence-based theories,’ which could easily be bought science such as mandatory vaccinations, is an outrage,” said Ford, “which is exactly what SB18 is saying. Furthermore, if any of these bureaucrats took one second to understand the life of a vaccine-injured child, which often includes complex diagnoses like tics, head banging and seizures, and what that family goes through when attempting to address these complexities, they would stop this continued push for Californians to comply with a medical utopia that simply does not exist, and instead look at the harm they are causing by injuring children through their egoistic negligence.”
Ford goes on to point out that in the early stages of vaccine injury, parents often seek emergency medical treatment in order to treat and diagnose the horrible symptoms often associated with vaccine injury. Subjecting families to increased scrutiny of in-home visits during such a stressful time while parents are simply trying to get their heads around what has happened to their kid is unconscionable.
“It definitely paves the way for egregious acts of medical kidnapping and other abuses,” said Ford.
While no one can argue that helping families who are at risk is an important and noble cause, overreaching by taking away the rights of the whole in the name of protecting a few is bad policy making. full story