Americans nowadays LOVE to get anxious over technical things they misunderstand. Then, rather then learn more and discover the limitations behind what made them anxious in the first place, they cling to their early ignorant notions, and form mutual support groups, combing the internet for factoids to rationalize the underlying fallacy. Right now there are even people who think a bit of hardware they don't understand on Android batteries is for "government surveillance:" Web Link

At least in the case of anti-vax superstitions, something legally can be done about it. The unanswerable bottom line is that these people's "choices" affect other kids, not just their own -- and that isn't their call.

This is just another reason to home school.

I'm sure this measure will serve to increase the number of people who keep their kids home and facilitate their learning outside of the 'official' channels.

That's a great thing in my opinion.

I can't believe that in the age of the internet, we're still putting our kids into an environment where there's one adult to 30 children, and who uses traditional teaching methods that have been rendered obsolete by technology.

The more people who leave the system, the better.

"I can't believe that in the age of the internet, we're still putting our kids into an environment where there's one adult to 30 children, and who uses traditional teaching methods that have been rendered obsolete by technology."

What nonsense. In case you haven't noticed, humans will interact with each other in close proximity to each other. The only people who don't seem to get that are types like you, who actually think that technology is the answer to everything (hint: it isn't).

Let's hope the anti-vaxxers are defeated in their efforts to jeopardize public health.

It's too bad that so many people have succumbed to the fear mongering and propaganda propagated by the profit- driven pharmaceutical companies. One would think we were dealing with Ebola but we're not. The normal childhood diseases for which the vaccines are required statistically are not dangerous. The only people dying from them were those already in poor health and they could just as easily succumb to any virus floating around.

Unvaccinated children do not pose any threat to public health. If a parent fears the contraction of these normal childhood diseases they can vaccinate their kids and "protect" them. But adverse effects from vaccines are a reality for some kids and those should not be ignored (the fact that pharma companies are immune from lawsuits stifles the information about adverse reactions that normally would be publicized).

Mandating an injection of a biological agent into any child is a violation of civil liberty and should not be taken lightly. There are hundreds of vaccines currently in R&D - where will the mandates stop? How long before we're required to bombard both children and adults with vaccines for dozens of diseases? What is the effect of interfering with the body's normal immune system? These questions have not been answered through research - no double blind studies have been done to compare the long term health of people who've been vaccinated vs those who have not. As long as questions remain all people should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to buck Mother Nature.

There are very few contentious topics where disagreement between groups merits personal attacks. This however, is one of those: Anti-vaxx'ers are either willfully ignorant, outright delusional, or fundamentally immoral. There is no excuse for willingly putting others in danger of catching an infectious disease when the science on this issue is compelling and the public policy issues are clear. I despise government intrusion in my life, but this is a case where clearly not everyone would "do the right thing" so in order to prevent the spread of these diseases, there must be some degree of compulsion used.

@Mother Earth -- are you willing to be personally liable (civilly and criminally) if you or one of your children infected someone else who had a compromised immune system and that person died? How about morally responsible? No? Didn't think so. Until you are, then your position is the height of hypocrisy. There is no "honest disagreement" on this topic. This is not about big Pharma. The science is clear and compelling and any argument to the contrary is patently dishonest.

Although I strongly agree with "Enough Already!" about the need for the anti-vax law, I strongly disagree with his view that personal attacks are appropriate and that "anti-vaxx'ers are either willfully ignorant, outright delusional, or fundamentally immoral." We should recognize that our opponents care deeply about their children, and that such concerns can often skew one's judgment. Many of them also are not as well educated and are less able to carefully analyze scientific data. Rather than attacking Mother Nature, I would point out to her that unvaccinated children pose a severe public health threat to children and adults who, like my wife, are immunocompromised, unable to use "live virus" vaccines, and are particularly vulnerable to contagious diseases. True, few people die from measles these days, but that's because few people GET measles these days, as a result of vaccinations. When I was a child (before the measles vaccine) deaths from measles were far more common. Globally, 562,000 people died from measles in 200 (according to the World Health Organization), although the number has dropped substantially since then, as a result of vaccinations. This is not fear-mongering, it is accepted scientific fact.

@ Enough already - usually people resort to personal attacks when they can't support their opinion with facts. Your anger is so disproportional to the issue that it makes me wonder if you are a paid shill for big pharma. First, to label anybody who questions the prudency of administering all vaccines to all kids according to the CDC schedule as an "anti-vaxxer" is inappropriate. This is about informed choice and the fundamental right to choose whether (and when) a child is injected with a biological agent that may pose a risk to that child. If you believe that vaccines are without risk then you haven't done your research because the data is available- billions have been paid out by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund to victims of vaccine injuries.

"are you willing to be personally liable (civilly and criminally) if you or one of your children infected someone else who had a compromised immune system and that person died? How about morally responsible?" Likewise, are YOU willing to be personally liable for those kids with irreversible brain damage resulting from vaccines? Or are those kids just collateral damage?

@Eric- it looks like you prefer patronization to personal attacks - is there a difference?
"We should recognize that our opponents care deeply about their children, and that such concerns can often skew one's judgment". Seriously? Because I disagree with you doesn't mean my judgement is skewed.
"Many of them also are not as well educated and are less able to carefully analyze scientific data." Also a cute dig but not true- I happen to be well educated and (if you'd researched the topic) you would know that statistically the parents that support informed choice are very highly educated. Consider the possibility that the reason the highest percentage of parents that oppose mandatory vaccines come from the highly educated group are that those highly educated people have actually done the research and analyzed the data (rather than just regurgitating the taglines propagated by big pharma that tout the uncontroverted safety of vaccines).

If your wife is immunocompromised then she should be wearing a mask while out in public to protect herself because she's just as susceptible to the flu, strep or thousands of other bugs that are just as threatening to her health as measles (and more likely to sicken her). Actually she probably shouldn't go out at all if she fears contracting a contagious disease because there will always be unvaccinated foreigners roaming amongst us as well as many adults for whom the efficacy of the vaccines have waned. And for school kids, remember that children with active HIV and hepatitis infections (which are serious diseases) are allowed to attend school while the healthy unvaccinated child is banned. It doesn't make sense that people have become more fearful of measles and chicken pox than of HIV and hep.

"When I was a child (before the measles vaccine) deaths from measles were far more common." Really? How many kids did you know (or even hear of) that died from the measles? The percentage of people that died from measles (pre-vaccine) is very, very low and almost all of the deaths occurred in malnourished victims living in poverty stricken areas. Healthy kids rarely die from measles! This is a fear that has been propagated by the pharmaceutical companies in order to generate "volume" revenue. It's actually a brilliant marketing strategy. Too bad so many people fall for it.

@Mother Nature -- You're not answering my question? Are you, YOU PERSONALLY, willing to take legal responsibility if you or your unvaccinated child infected someone with a compromised immune system and that person died? Your attempt at turning the question around is hardly a rebuttal. I actually fully support the current public policy on vaccination, even though that potentially results in damage to a (infinitesimally) small segment of the population. Our public policy on speed limits also causes more traffic deaths than it would if everyone drove 50% slower, but every policy has trade offs. All that being said, we are talking about impacts of a broad policy, versus impacts of a specific individual choice you are advocating. Again, are you willing to be held fully accountable for YOUR choice if things go badly?

@Enough- so it sounds like you do consider vaccine injured kids collateral damage. I guess some kids are just sacrificial lambs for the "greater good." Wow - and you're preaching to me about morality?

Californian children have a 97% vaccination rate. The unvaccinated 3% of kids are not putting the other school children in jeopardy. That's more fearmongering. The odds are very small that the unvaccinated child first contracts the disease then spreads it to the very small percentage of school children that are immunocompromised. And frankly, if my child were immunocompromised I wouldn't have him in school until his immune system was sufficiently strong to withstand the onslaught of the many contagious diseases that we do not vaccinate against.

The odds of healthy people dying from measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc are much lower than the odds of suffering a vaccine injury. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the risk of vaccine injury is infinitesimal but you're wrong. Vaccine injury is a real risk for some kids. And btw we don't know what the long term effects of all these vaccines are- we may have fewer cases of measles than pre-vaccine days but we have a lot more kids with allergies, asthma, immune disorders, cancer, etc. It's possible that these benign childhood diseases strengthen the immune system and protect against more serious health threats. We won't know until both populations (vaccinated & unvaccinated) have been studied and compared. But oh darn - nobody's doing those studies because most of the studies are funded by big pharma and they've no interest in revealing negative aspects of their products.

Dear Mother [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
-- First, you still refuse to answer the question: Would you take full legal responsibility for the death of someone your child exposed to a communicable disease because YOU refused to have him/her vaccinated? Simple question. Yes or No?

Second, you cite zero scientific *evidence* backing your position, instead regurgitating nothing more than the line of completely speculative bull common to anit-vax'ers. What is the basis for saying "Vacine injury is a real risk for some kids"? Where is a peer reviewed study to support this. The percentages are miniscule. I could just as easily say eating an apple is a real risk for some kids because it's conceivable that one of them just might choke on a seed. Give me science not dogma...

Oh, so now we're worried about people with compromised immunity? In the name of public health?

I say we shouldn't let those people breed. They're just passing bad genes down the line.

In the name of public health of course.