Legislature day 26: Student vaccinations, 'stand your ground' and parceling out inmates

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • JTB ccs Eden, UT
    Feb. 17, 2017 7:14 p.m.

    I am always heartened by the level of passion on both sides of the vaccine issue. It shows we care about our children and their health no matter which viewpoint you take. That said, as a frontline medical provider who gains nothing personally from vaccines (we don't even give them in the ER) I have seen death and disability and regret and despair as unvaccinated children present with horrible preventable conditions. Polio, smallpox, diphtheria, and meningitis are now either completely gone or nearly gone. I have felt grave fear and concern as I am told that the sick child in front of me hasn't been vaccinated. Again, we all want our children to be well, and I applaud others' research, efforts, and fear for their children. In the end, vaccines are enormously safe and absolutely life-saving.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 17, 2017 3:13 p.m.

    One can hope that any vaccination legislation will be based on legitimate scientific evidence and not on the pro-vax emotional pseudo-science or rent-seeking of big drug companies. The risks of vaccination to personal health are not an issue of beliefs, but are evidence-based including the evidence put forth by the existence of the federal fund to compensate victims of adverse reactions to vaccinations.

    I'm pro vaccination. But I insist on a modified schedule tailored to minimize risk to my children, as opposed to the standard schedule intended to maximize convenience for parents and doctors. I also insist on the right to decline certain vaccines that are of dubious value. Chicken pox, for example. Other vaccines intended for infants going into daycare rather than being raised at home.

    I also recognize that an unvaccinated child poses no more risk to me or my children than does a vaccinated child. If someone has a contagious illness, it matters not a bit whether they were vaccinated or not.

    Evidence based means dropping the self-righteous moral imperative as much as avoiding fear mongering about autism.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 17, 2017 9:49 a.m.

    One can hope that any vaccination legislation will be based on legitimate scientific evidence and not on the anti-vax emotional pseudo-science. The benefits of vaccination to pubic health are not an issue of beliefs, but are evidence-based. Virtually all religious and medical organizations recognize the legitimacy of protecting individuals from preventable diseases through vaccinations.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 17, 2017 9:03 a.m.

    Utah already has a "Stand your ground" law. Utah law specifically says there is no duty for an innocent man to retreat in order to claim legitimate self-defense.

    All this bill does is prevent prosecutors from lying about that law during a trial, and prevent a judge or jury from legally considering whether someone did or did not retreat as a basis for whether or not their self-defense claim is valid.

    No innocent man should be compelled to retreat before having a valid claim on self-defense. No innocent man should be judged by Monday morning armchair quarterbacks over whether he had an easy, safe way to retreat or not.

    What can be painted as so easy in the bright light of day in a safe courtroom with hours to contemplate might well have been very different in a dark alley with fractions of a second to make a life or death decision.

    Don't attack, assault, or threaten others and they will never have legitimate reason to use force against you. If you put a reasonable man in fear of his life or limb, don't complain if he defends himself and don't claim he should have retreated before doing so.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 17, 2017 6:19 a.m.

    Stand your ground makes a lot of sense. But it can also be applicable to either party in some confrontations.

    If Treyvon Martin had a gun the day he died, he could easily have shot and killed Zimmerman and claimed "Stand your ground". And he would have had a much easier case than Zimmerman.

    With "Stand your ground" you can be the aggressor and instigator of a confrontation. And if your target fights back, you can shoot them and claim "Stand your ground".

    I like "Stand your Ground" laws, but think that they need to be very carefully written so that they are not easily abused.