Elephants and Peanuts: An Informed Citizen's Week in Review

Black Death (4.00 / 5)

The Black Death "declined naturally" after killing 30% - 60% of Europe's population, and reducing the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million.

"Politics ain't beanbag" - Finley Peter Dunne

---

by: William Tucker @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 19:19:21 PM UTC

seems much more efficient... (0.00 / 0)

than the inefficiencies of eugenics for the "mentally handicapped" - although probably not very discriminating!

ugh - ignorance isn't bliss...

---

by: BeGreener @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 19:43:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

there you go again (4.00 / 1)

using facts and science.  

---

by: susanthe @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 20:17:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Free Birth Clinics (0.00 / 0)

Paid for by bake sales.

(unless your illegal or on welfare/gubmint subsidy)

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 19:43:09 PM UTC

Who needs police? (4.00 / 8)

Jack the Ripper was a terrible murderer, there was never an arrest for Jack the Ripper and yet he stopped killing eventually.  Have you heard of him, Jack the Ripper?

---

by: Tim C. @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 19:50:02 PM UTC

Who needs to help hurricane victims? (4.00 / 4)

Hurricane Katrina was a terrible hurricane, there was never a way to stop Hurricane Katrina and yet it stopped blowing and raining eventually.  Have you heard of this, Hurricane Katrina?

Social Media Director for Jackie Cilley for Governor. Follow her on Twitter & Facebook!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 22:40:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

boars vomit (0.00 / 0)

The Notter Clinic.

---

by: susanthe @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 20:25:23 PM UTC

Wow (4.00 / 3)

That Black Death comment deserves national attention. Where was he going with that?

---

by: JimC @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 21:54:27 PM UTC

Michelle Bachmann is to US Congress (4.00 / 3)

as Jeanine Notter is to the Bill O'Brien Statehouse:

NHPR News

Lead aqueducts sank ancient Rome, dangerous vaccines could sink us, Jeanine Notter (r) Merrimack.

15 Mar via Mobile Web

http://twitter.com/#!/NHPRNews...


Social Media Director for Jackie Cilley for Governor. Follow her on Twitter & Facebook!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 22:31:16 PM UTC

alas babylon n/t (0.00 / 0)

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. ~ Mark Twain

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 00:52:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't have the exact time stamp (0.00 / 0)

Sometime in the first hour or two on Thursday March 17th:

This is not a fact, this is just something I have observed.

Joe Osgood (R-Claremont)


sitting state rep: running for re-election in 2012.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 05:42:19 AM UTC

More evidence of Dean's "superficial optics" at work. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: hannah @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 18:03:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

polio & Europe (0.00 / 0)

"Are you aware when polio was rampant worldwide, Americans got the shot, but Europeans didn't and Polio declined naturally in Europe without the shot" (1:15:48)
-Rep. Notter on HB416
3/15/11 AM Session

This remark doesn't stand up to even the most rudimentary attempt at verification.  They do give polio immunizations in Europe, and have done so for decades.



sitting state rep: running for re-election in 2012.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:42:00 AM UTC

I am confused, Rep. Horrigan (0.00 / 0)

According to the roll call, you were one of like two Democrats who voted with members of the fringe like Baldassaro, Itse, Notter, Ulery, and Comerford, as well as assorted free staters, in an effort to keep this bill from being killed.

This was a bill that would permit kids to attend school without being vaccinated if their parents had " conscientious" objections - not religious, which already is an exemption. It would endanger health and safety by opening the door to diseases like polio and rubella.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 23:59:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, that's not what the bill would have done... (0.00 / 0)

As a co-sponsor of this, I need to correct your misunderstanding of this bill:

The bill would not have changed whether or not kids could attend - they would have likely had MORE vaccinations than the kids who parents signed the current religious exemption law (so if your goal is MORE vaccinations, this would have helped that goal)

Current law (and this was debated as to whether it's enforced or not, but the law as written and most practiced) says that you can get a religious exemption only for all vaccines.  This bill was to allow partial vaccination, so if you objected to Vaccine A (perhaps made with fetal cells, as some are), but not Vaccine B (say polio or rubella), you could do that.  Right now, you cannot, so if you want to object, you are supposed to object to all of them.  As mentioned, the opposition at first claimed that that was a bad idea, and then reversed itself claiming that was ok to do now (and that doctors would do it, despite testimony rebutting that)... and then finally they sited an 11 year old study of other countries, but refused to look at recent studies of other states here in the USA.

As for why they phrased it as 'conscientious objection', it's not always about religious beliefs, it might you feel unsafe with a particular vaccine for scientific reasons... and yet, currently, you have to sign a form claiming you have a religious objection.

This was a perfect case of a good bill poorly explained, and the objections to it were all countered by facts, which were rebutted with other facts (or different arguments), and in the end, people always prefer to err on the side of the status quo, so they rejected the bill as uncertainty reigned in the end.  More education is needed...  

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:51:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

cited (not sited) (0.00 / 0)

And btw, if someone wants to argue the science, I'll point you to someone who will science you out.
This isn't anti-science at all, in fact, the opposition to this bill is ignoring the science here in many ways.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:54:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see where the statute says ONLY for ALL vaccines. (0.00 / 0)

 

141-C:20-c Exemptions. - A child shall be exempt from immunization if:
   I.....
   II. A parent or legal guardian objects to immunization because of religious beliefs. The parent or legal guardian shall sign a notarized form stating that the child has not been immunized because of religious beliefs.

I see nothing here that would prohibit a parent from refusing only vaccines formulated with fetal cells.


Here is a fact that should help you to fight a little longer.
Things that don't actually kill you outright make you stronger.

Piet Hein, Grooks

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 02:19:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read for yourself (4.00 / 1)

The statute says:
    I. All parents or legal guardians shall have their children who are residing in this state immunized against certain diseases. These diseases shall include, but not be limited to, diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, rubeola, and tetanus. The commissioner shall adopt rules under RSA 541-A relative to other diseases which require immunization.
    II. No child shall be admitted or enrolled in any school or child care agency, public or private, unless the following is demonstrated:
       (a) Immunization under paragraph I;
       (b) Partial immunization relative to the age of the child as specified in rules adopted by the commissioner; or
       (c) Exemption under RSA 141-C:20-c.

The current exemption language:
A child shall be exempt from immunization if:
    I. A physician licensed under RSA 329, or a physician exempted under RSA 329:21, III, certifies that immunization against a particular disease may be detrimental to the child's health. The exemption shall exist only for the length of time, in the opinion of the physician, such immunization would be detrimental to the child. An exemption from immunization for one disease shall not affect other required immunizations.
    II. A parent or legal guardian objects to immunization because of religious beliefs. The parent or legal guardian shall sign a notarized form stating that the child has not been immunized because of religious beliefs.

The text of the bill:
HB 416 - AS INTRODUCED

2011 SESSION

11-0719

01/03

HOUSE BILL 416

AN ACT adding an exemption from immunization for conscientious beliefs.

SPONSORS: Rep. Lambert, Hills 27; Rep. L. Jones, Straf 1; Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Cohn, Merr 6; Rep. Pratt, Hills 7; Rep. Sapareto, Rock 5; Rep. J. Belanger, Hills 5; Rep. Manuse, Rock 5; Rep. McDonnell, Merr 7

COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law

ANALYSIS

This bill adds an exemption from immunization for conscientious beliefs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

11-0719

01/03

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT adding an exemption from immunization for conscientious beliefs.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Paragraph; Exemption for Conscientious Beliefs. Amend RSA 141-C:20-c by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraph:

III. A parent or legal guardian objects to immunization because of conscientious beliefs. The parent or legal guardian shall sign a form that shall be witnessed by a health care provider or notary public stating that the child has not been immunized because of conscientious beliefs.

Nothing in here about partial immunization, and it is all about enrolling in schools. You don't understand your bill. If this involved partial immunization you would have amended subsection 20-b, partial immunization, not 20-c, exemption.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 02:21:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"The statute isn't specific, so we'll leave it vague instead of fixing it..." (0.00 / 0)

You're confusing 'partial immunization', with what I'm saying here.  And it's not 20-b (which is Records), but 20-a (item IIb) you meant:

141-C:20-a Immunization. -
   I. All parents or legal guardians shall have their children who are residing in this state immunized against certain diseases. These diseases shall include, but not be limited to, diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, rubeola, and tetanus. The commissioner shall adopt rules under RSA 541-A relative to other diseases which require immunization.
   II. No child shall be admitted or enrolled in any school or child care agency, public or private, unless the following is demonstrated:
      (a) Immunization under paragraph I;
      (b) Partial immunization relative to the age of the child as specified in rules adopted by the commissioner; or
      (c) Exemption under RSA 141-C:20-c.
Source. 1987, 193:7. 1995, 310:183, eff. Nov. 1, 1995.

So (b) is purely an age limitation (ie we only give a child a shot at Age X, and not before...)
So (c) is clearly the exemption rule, since (a) is total, (b) is age, and (c) is any exemptions.

141-C:20-c Exemptions. - A child shall be exempt from immunization if:
   I. A physician licensed under RSA 329, or a physician exempted under RSA 329:21, III, certifies that immunization against a particular disease may be detrimental to the child's health. The exemption shall exist only for the length of time, in the opinion of the physician, such immunization would be detrimental to the child. An exemption from immunization for one disease shall not affect other required immunizations.
   II. A parent or legal guardian objects to immunization because of religious beliefs. The parent or legal guardian shall sign a notarized form stating that the child has not been immunized because of religious beliefs.
Source. 1987, 193:7. 2001, 18:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2002.

Note how II doesn't allow partial immunization, just 'immunization' in toto.
You cannot readily object to some, only to all, and there is no clause allowing objection for non religious beliefs.  Altering II didn't make sense: there are people who have a total religious objection to immunization, and we don't want to change that.

Now, look at the bill again: it adds III,
"conscientious beliefs", which, unlike religious beliefs, might be partial. (because unlike religious beliefs, they might be specific to Vaccine A but not B.) "The parent or legal guardian shall sign a form that shall be witnessed by a health care provider or notary public stating that the child has not been immunized because of conscientious belief"  The sample forms (not part of the statute, since they'd be defined by rules) but provided to the committee, showed that a choice of which vaccines were possible, unlike the current religious exemption form.  And these weren't strange custom forms, they were copies of forms used in other states, which allow this very same level of choice.  And there was a proposed amendment to spell this out better.

So all of that said... read the blurb against this bill:

HB 416, adding an exemption from immunization for conscientious beliefs.  INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. David S. Robbins for Children and Family Law:   The proposed law would add an exemption for conscientious belief to the NH requirement that all children be immunized for attendance at public schools and licensed day care facilities.  Currently NH requires a series of vaccinations and boosters for entry to and continued attendance at public schools and licensed day care facilities.  There are now two exemptions: medical and religious.  A medical professional can assert that a specific vaccination or vaccinations should be delayed or proscribed due to a temporary or ongoing medical condition.  Parents may assert that vaccination violates a religious tenant.  NH law is silent on whether the religious exemption allows the parents to choose administration of some, but not all, vaccinations.  Testimony before the committee indicated that some, but by no means all, medical professionals were reluctant to administer selective immunizations. Further testimony indicated that parents could, if they chose, find medical professionals who would administer vaccinations selectively.  The committee believes that immunization requirements for attendance at public school and licensed daycare are appropriate and necessary for the public good.  We received testimony indicating increased outbreaks of pertussis and other contagious diseases in states and countries with decreased immunization rates.  Conversely, there was lower disease incidence in states and countries with high immunization rates.  Further testimony indicated that effective group protection required very high, but not total, immunization rates.  A small percentage of unimmunized individuals did not threaten the health of the group.  However, beyond a certain threshold (the limit of herd immunity) infection rates increased dramatically.  The committee heard the anguished, passionate, frustrated, philosophical, constitutional and health-based arguments offered by parents and professionals supporting an exemption as a right of conscience.  They were compelling and well-articulated.  The committee did not and does not dismiss or minimize them.  They come from a genuine concern for children's health and the right of parents to make choices for their children.  The committee concluded that there was compelling, overwhelming medical evidence that vaccinations were effective and current law served the public good.  Allowing a third exemption would threaten public health.  We further concluded that while vaccinations have some risks of adverse consequences, the public good outweighs the individual risks.
Parents may choose which, if any, vaccines their children receive.  They have school choice options including private, parochial and/or home schooling.  The committee believes these options provide a balance between group health and a parent's right to choose what they believe best for their children.  Vote 8-3.

Someone care to explain how adding that 3rd item 'conscientious objection' would have threatened public health in any way more than the 2nd item 'religious exemption' would?  (BTW, any parent who signs the religious form gets the exemption, there is no religious test... adding a 3rd would only have taken from people who right now take choice #2 anyway)  We are forcing people to lie that their religion forbids vaccines, and they must seek out a exceptional doctor (which even the blurb admits can be done) in order to GET some vaccinations but not others (and they would STILL have to sign the paperwork exempting them from all, but then get some (ie lie!)  And the blurb admits that the new law (as proposed) is in fact already allowed but they then claim it's a bad idea to do anyway.

I wish the amendment (which was proposed) had been adopted, it spelt out the partial factor explicitly.  The committee refused to adopt it, they just wanted the bill ITLed, so they didn't want to amend it for clarity.  They could have amended the current law to clarify religious exemptions could be partial: they didn't.
They pointed out that the situation as it stands allows it, and then called it a public threat, but didn't fix it, disallowing the very thing they admit the bill wanted to do, they claim can be done now.  So what exactly did they do here?  Nothing.  Status quo, as I said.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 03:44:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You don't want the facts (0.00 / 0)

Greater exemptions lead to outbreak, which threatens high risk populations, such as children under the age of two and pregnant women. Not to mention the children whose parents don't immunize the children.

The facts are there, but you and Rep. Notter are not interested in facts or science that undercut your fringe ideology.

http://www.texmed.org/Template...

So you can blah blah all the day long, but it won't change the facts.

Have a great day in cloud cuckoo land!



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 12:02:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

'Greater exemptions'? (0.00 / 1)

Kathy: every single person today who wants an exemption gets one.  They take a form, sign it, notarize it, and bingo, exempt.  They just have to lie on their form, and claiming a religious exemption, even if their religion doesn't explicitly forbid vaccinations.

How would this have changed the number of people exempting?  It wouldn't have.  It's like taking half the people from one line, and starting a new line next to the first line, and claiming that the number of people has doubled.  Addtionally, this new line, unlike the first line, would have made it MORE likely for some vaccines to be used, since unlike line 1 (all or nothing, and don't be misled, 95% of that line is offered only those options), but in line 2, they can pick to exclude 1, 2, 3, or more vaccines and take the rest.

My 'fringe' ideology is called choice.
I'm pro-choice, how about you?

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 13:30:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are these guys living in the Middle Ages? (4.00 / 1)

Are these guys seriously debating scientific evidence about vaccinations? Where do they get off even attempting to play at being knowledgeable enough to form an opinion? Are we going to revisit the Scopes trial next?

This is all about Jobs alright. Theirs... It's time to put their inane acts on the airwaves to demonstrate to the public how stupid they sound to their own constituents. We need to start early and produce ads with these audio clips to shame these guys to do the work they were voted in to do. Or at least stop making idiots of themselves with these stupid statements.

---

by: Wynter @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 06:47:03 AM UTC

What would George Washington say? (4.00 / 3)

Most people don't know this, but George Washington implemented the first forced innoculation in the country:

It is true that in their time there was no such thing as safe, standardized immunization. But even then, inoculation was used to quell smallpox, the deadliest scourge of the day. Such preventive public health measures framed the early days of our nation as tightly as the "unalienable rights" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

John Adams was inoculated in 1764. Twelve years later, while he was in Philadelphia declaring American independence, his wife and children were inoculated as an epidemic raged in Boston. Gen. George Washington ordered his soldiers to be inoculated in 1777 because more men were falling to smallpox than to Redcoat muskets. Thomas Jefferson, who avidly followed the scientific literature on the subject, inoculated himself and his children in 1782.

What would our Founding Fathers think of these anti-vacciners that claim to follow them?

It's odd, but you look at things like the NH indigent support law, or the vaccination of the Continental Army and it becomes clear that our Founding Fathers would see these people as an incredibly backwards, anti-Enlightenment bunch.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 13:10:01 PM UTC

It doesn't count that John Adams was vaccinated (0.00 / 0)

nor that Washington required vaccination of his troops.

But shouldn't the fact that Thomas Jefferson chose inoculation for himself and his family be the dispositive precedent in favor of the practice?

Here is a fact that should help you to fight a little longer.
Things that don't actually kill you outright make you stronger.

Piet Hein, Grooks

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:01:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

All of these comments are evidence of some people (0.00 / 0)

not recognizing the relationship between cause and effect and not knowing the difference between consequence (a temporal relationship) and causality.
What occurred to me today is that some people may not be able to recognize cause as a concept. Things just happen, sometimes one after the other, sometimes not.
Of course, if they don't recognize cause, they can't recognize a relationship with effect.  And when it comes to effects, they simply experience those in isolation as either good or bad, depending on whether or not they feel right.  "Feelings" are important if cognitive assessment is missing.  The instinct-driven don't just prefer what their gut tells them; it's their only source of information.
Also, persons who don't understand cause, are likely to have little use for history or for planning for the future.  If things just happen, why plan?

Is it a deficit if millions of brains work this way?  Maybe it's just a variant and the people who divine causes are peculiar.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 18:13:52 PM UTC

Sounds like my cats! (0.00 / 0)

 "The future is not something to be predicted, it's something to be achieved,"  unattributed aphorism

---

by: susaninrindge @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 18:23:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sounds to me like a serious learning disability (4.00 / 1)

Not enough early intervention...
(early intervention!?  who needs early intervention?? ... we don't need any stinkin' early intervention...)

This is likely why they hate education.  They can't do it!

 "The future is not something to be predicted, it's something to be achieved,"  unattributed aphorism

---

by: susaninrindge @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 18:43:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ironically (0.00 / 0)

The right also accuses the left of being the ones who are coming from feelings and not logic.  So if your view is correct, both sides have people like this.

Perhaps both sides need to realize that the other side just has different axioms from which they start.  Godel's theorem says that's not only likely but we almost certainly cannot prove the other wrong as a result.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:58:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Feelings v. logic not at issue here. (0.00 / 0)

Science vs. the rejection of science, rather.

There's policy making based on evidence produced from the scientific method, and there's policy making based on choosing to ignore evidence produced from the scientific method.

One thing I have struggled to understand about alleged "conservative" ideology is its poor allegiance to the Western tradition of the scientific method.

Social Media Director for Jackie Cilley for Governor. Follow her on Twitter & Facebook!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 03:06:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure you're correct (0.00 / 0)

But I can see how you see that.  I think different sciences favor different groups.  Economics appeals to some, social sciences to others, hard sciences to others... there are social conservatives who are anti-science, but there are social liberals who are as well... that's not a political split.


BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 03:59:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The scientific method is not up for debate. (4.00 / 1)

One either adheres to it, or rejects it.

One either creates a body of medical knowledge out of experimentation, research, trial and error, that leads to an understanding of sickness, or one blames that tummy ache on Zeus.

The so-called "soft" sciences are no less bound by the scientific method if they want to have any credibility in the Western world (or the whole world, really, outside of Concord.)

Social Media Director for Jackie Cilley for Governor. Follow her on Twitter & Facebook!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 14:47:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

World views. (0.00 / 0)

Either we live in communities or we live in patriarchal nuclear families.  Either we work together, or all the strict fathers fight each other for the biggest slice of whatever is available out there, and protect their property (including the other humans in the household) with force.  That's what all the guns are for.  

So we talk past each other.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 13:13:17 PM UTC

Actually, there are more choices than those 2... (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 23:27:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Procrastinating (0.00 / 0)

The bacteria in the bathroom will decline naturally, right?

---

by: JimC @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 18:27:15 PM UTC