Alert: NY Assembly Voting to Give Vaccines to Minors Without Parental Permission

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Um, from a liberty standpoint shouldn't children have a say over their bodies instead of someone other than them?


herp derp derp derp

What if a 15 year old wanted to sell her body?

Would that be ok?

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Sad, now the government can essentially inject children with any satanic alchemic substance they feel like giving them. Forcefully giving kids injections that may kill them with no culpability if and when the children die as a result. I thought that was the purpose of getting parental signatures. Now, the government are your parents.

Its so demonic, friends.

 

[Brown_Pride]

okay fine, we'll give you the "vaccines shouldn't be administered without parental permission argument."



so why not add an amendment clearly stating the conditions a vaccine has to go through to be administerd without parental consent

- tested x amount of years
- already used with parental permission
- reoccurring studies on the benefits and effects

why not add conditions that element this zombie Apocalypse from possibly happening

oh and how about not adding it into page 53 of 212 of an appropriations bill

this is really blowing my mind that so many people are ok with the government injecting kids with shyt without parental consent and then looking at me like

Science about to go "religious" on forced vaccination.

Like i said i'm all for vaccinations, i'm just also all for not having the government inject shyt in my kids because they believe that's what's best for them.

Like i said it's a hop skip and stones throw away from forced sterilization.

Liberties > damn near everything else tbh.
Vaccinate your kids and when the kids without vaccines start dropping off you don't have anythign to worry about.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Like i said i'm all for vaccinations, i'm just also all for not having the government inject shyt in my kids because they believe that's what's best for them

They already do this though. Your child is not allowed to go to school without immunization shots.

Oh but because you choose the date of the doctors appointment, you've acted upon your parental consent?

 

[88m3]

What if a 15 year old wanted to sell her body?

Would that be ok?

Drink a dikk?

 

[88m3]

Sad, now the government can essentially inject children with any satanic alchemic substance they feel like giving them. Forcefully giving kids injections that may kill them with no culpability if and when the children die as a result. I thought that was the purpose of getting parental signatures. Now, the government are your parents.

Its so demonic, friends.

I guess little mowgli can stay home from school and big mowgli can't teach him all about the world

 

[Mr. Somebody]

I guess little mowgli can stay home from school and big mowgli can't teach him all about the world

They leave me no choice. Now i see why these demons are trying to destroy homeschooling. It all makes sense now. Setting the stage for demonic alchemists to have free reign to inject our youth with stuff. Its so demonic, friend.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Wait.

did anybody actually read this shyt

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. Section 2305 of the public health law, as amended by chap-
2 ter 878 of the laws of 1980, is amended to read as follows:
3 S 2305. Sexually transmissible diseases; CARE AND treatment [by
4 licensed physician or staff physician of a hospital; prescriptions] ;
5 CONSENT BY MINORS. 1. No person, other than a [licensed physician, or,
6 in a hospital, a staff physician] HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER, shall diag-
7 nose, treat or prescribe for a person who is infected with a sexually
8 transmissible disease, or who has been exposed to infection with a sexu-
9 ally transmissible disease, or dispense or sell a drug, medicine or
10 remedy for the treatment of such person except on prescription of a
11 [duly licensed physician] HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER.
12 2. (A) A [licensed physician, or in a hospital, a staff physician,]
13 HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER may diagnose, treat or prescribe TREATMENT FOR
14 A SEXUALLY TRANSMISSIBLE DISEASE for a person under the age of [twenty-
15 one] EIGHTEEN years without the consent or knowledge of the parents or
16 [guardian] GUARDIANS of said person, where such person is infected with
17 a sexually transmissible disease, or has been exposed to infection with
18 a sexually transmissible disease.
19 (B) A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER MAY PROVIDE HEALTH CARE RELATED TO THE
20 PREVENTION OF A SEXUALLY TRANSMISSIBLE DISEASE, INCLUDING ADMINISTERING
21 VACCINES, TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS WITHOUT THE

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD01523-01-3
A. 497 2

1 CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OF SUCH PERSON,
2 PROVIDED THAT THE PERSON HAS CAPACITY TO CONSENT TO THE CARE, WITHOUT
3 REGARD TO THE PERSON'S AGE, AND THE PERSON CONSENTS.
4 (C) ANY RELEASE OF PATIENT INFORMATION REGARDING VACCINES PROVIDED
5 UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH SECTIONS SEVENTEEN AND EIGH-
6 TEEN OF THIS CHAPTER AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
7 3. For the purposes of this section, [the term]
8 (A) "hospital" shall mean a hospital as defined in article twenty-
9 eight of this chapter; AND
10 (B) "HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER" SHALL MEAN A PERSON LICENSED, CERTIFIED
11 OR OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION
12 LAW, ACTING WITHIN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE.
13 S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

you dumb fukks

@BarNone ban this guy @thekingsmen for straight up fraudulent information

 

[Brown_Pride]

Wait.

did anybody actually read this shyt



you dumb fukks

@BarNone ban this guy @thekingsmen for straight up fraudulent information

that's different than just vaccinating kids for no reason sounds like the request would come from the student and they'd have to be infected or having had been exposed.

I wonder if this would bar the schools from administering std test to students?

 

[Brown_Pride]

They already do this though. Your child is not allowed to go to school without immunization shots.

Oh but because you choose the date of the doctors appointment, you've acted upon your parental consent?

and yeah believe it or not at least there is an option of a choice. Don't get the vaccine and home school. Or cook up some records.

 

[88m3]

Of course no one read it, half the people that post here can't even read.

 

[88m3]

and yeah believe it or not at least there is an option of a choice. Don't get the vaccine and home school. Or cook up some records.

Is that how your kids got into college?



I don't want Dr. Yakub injecting my children either.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

that's different than just vaccinating kids for no reason sounds like the request would come from the student and they'd have to be infected or having had been exposed.

I wonder if this would bar the schools from administering std test to students?

Yes exactly, its a transfer of consent from the parent to the child.

And it doesn't touch on testing. That's not what this bill is about (although kingsmen would have you think that). Its a consent bill. You read it yourself. The only power established is that of a minor over their health decisions.

Vaccines/Immunization requirements are clearly written in each states laws. In NYS, the rule for schools only deals with acute communicable diseases. (as should be the case)

Now for collegiate institutions, you can make the argument that STD testing should be a requirement (barring expulsion for positive results). That is an entirely different thread.

 

[88m3]

Yes exactly, its a transfer of consent from the parent to the child.

And it doesn't touch on testing. That's not what this bill is about (although kingsmen would have you think that). Its a consent bill. You read it yourself. The only power established is that of a minor over their health decisions.

Vaccines/Immunization requirements are clearly written in each states laws. In NYS, the rule for schools only deals with acute communicable diseases. (as should be the case)

Now for collegiate institutions, you can make the argument that STD testing should be a requirement (barring expulsion for positive results). That is an entirely different thread.

one of three posters that knows what's going on in this thread

Spoiler

 

[No1]

@thekingsmen, you're putting me in an awkward spot with you posting up misleading stuff. This is grounds for getting your thread-making privileges limited, you don't know I don't like telling people what to do, but you have to do better. I'd have PMed you if I wasn't on my phone.