Parents in Colorado have come to equal understanding concerning the passing of a House Bill by committee, and now, on its way to a state congressional vote.
After California mandated children to receive vaccinations despite the evidence uncovered by whistle blowers, and once hidden statistics, proving the dangers vaccinations, and what it poses to living a healthy life, like California’s recent mandate, SB 277, the government is preparing for further medical tyranny.
In Colorado an unlikely thing has happened, and both sides of the vaccination movement agree that the U.S. Government is crossing the line when it comes to the amount of control the government wishes to have over a parent’s child.
House Bill 1164, as one Colorado mom explained, “is designed to circumvent the law protecting privacy and bully people into every vaccine on the market.”
Find out on page two what the government wants to file away if you’re a Colorado resident.
Sandy, don’t bother. These anti-vax nut jobs will ignore science, history, and anything else that doesn’t support their views. First it was ethylmercury in vaccines that caused autism. California banned it. No change in autism rates, so then they say REMOVING the ethylmercury is what caused autism.
There’s literally no reasoning with them.
So Obama can take guns from parents of unvaccinated children!
Same way they make vaccines, and the same way they are now making anti cancer vaccines from people who got sick with stuff people are vaccinated against and beat it. Evolution, natural selection, and natural immunity.
like I said… Anti-vax not jobs. Ignore science, suggest scientifically moronic alternative.
Really? Let’s change it then to something else, same numbers etc. To protect yourself against terrorist invading the country the gov offers everyone 1 gun, the only gun you can have, and the only one that will work against the terrorists. You can’t defend your neighbor with it, and they you. But, out of 10 million guns, at least 100,000 guns will fail and you will have a 50/50 chance of meeting a terrorist unarmed. Feel safe and protected still? From the comments I’ve seen before, probably not. Same risk, same chance of protection. To each their own 🙂
Ok let’s use your (less than perfect) analogy. And let’s assume all your mathematical assumptions are correct. You’d rather not have those guns and be defenseless? You’re basically saying that somehow a 0% chance of survival is morally superior to a 99.95% chance of survival.
Btw the 99.95% chance comes by virtue of the fact that I have more than one immunized neighbor protecting me, even if my immune system is compromised and I’m unable to be immunized or the immunization was ineffective.
Carl Franzene But you don’t start with a 0 chance right? It’s 50/50. You only try to achieve full protection.
Like I said, vaccinate, don’t vaccinate. Won’t affect me at all.
True, provided that enough of us do to provide your herd immunity.