Skip to main content

Yesterday morning, I mentioned that a group of California fundies is trying to derail a bill that would eliminate the "personal beliefs" exemption to the childhood vaccination requirement.  Parents would only be able to opt out after participating in an information session which discusses the risks involved if kids don't get their shots.

Well, it turns out this effort was highlighted on Friday's 700 Club--or at the very least, Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network is highlighting it online.  It makes one wonder--have Robertson and CBN embraced anti-vaccine hoakum?

CBN's writeup claims that this is nothing less than a threat to parents' right to raise their kids how they see fit.  Um, Pat?  What about the rights of other kids?  And what about the rights of those with weak immune systems?

As long as CBN is publicizing this effort to derail what appears to be a common-sense bill protecting public health, you can only wonder if it's joined the anti-vaxxer bandwagon.

Now you're probably thinking that this wouldn't be too big of a leap for an outfit that has long supported "creation science" and "intelligent design."  The difference here, though, is that supporting creationism doesn't risk causing innocent people to die.

Plus, this wouldn't be the first time that CBN is on the wrong side of an issue that could get people seriously hurt.  After all, we are talking about a guy who told child-abuse victims from at least 1996 until this past spring that they can somehow "consent" to incest and "allow yourself to be molested.

If CBN has embraced the anti-vaccination movement--especially when several states are experiencing outbreaks of diseases completely preventable by vaccination--then it needs to be called out.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The only quibble I have with your argument is (7+ / 0-)

    your assertion that belief in creationism doesn't hurt anyone.  I have watched the course of this debate about creationism and its unholy offspring "Intelligent Design" from its beginning in the 1970s.  I absolutely believe that it was the beachfront that the anti-science movement stormed to establish their beliefs in the popular culture.  From "respecting the beliefs" of creationists it morphed into "teach the controversy" (that doesn't exist) then into to taxpayer-supported I D theme parks in Kentucky and ALL of the Presidential candidates for a major party saying they didn't believe in evolution.  

    Creationism was the harbinger of climate change denial, the anti vaxxers, etc. and the doubt they cast on all science is manipulated for political purposes to keep low-info voters suspicious of everything from the FDA, LGBT rights, green technology and even the freaking Census.  Creationism has hurt has opened the door for a host of ignorant "beliefs" and a habit of rejecting science.  

    Otherwise, your diary is spot-on and I couldn't agree more.  Encouraging parents to not get information about vaccines simply to further your own political/social agenda is beyond reprehensible.  It WILL cause illness and deaths of innocent kids.    

    Grrr.  Tipped and recced.    

    Metaphors be with you.

    by koosah on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 06:51:25 AM PDT

  •  oh i sure hope so! (4+ / 0-)

    Yes, I hope Robertson has become an anti-vaxxer, because if anything since his odious comments on 9/11 could possibly derail his nasty little bandwagon, that would be the thing.

    Like this:  even most of the religious right aren't willing to "go there" because they want to protect their own children.  A lot of them would have heard stories from their parents and grandparents about horrible epidemics.

    The fanatical element of the religious right, who march in lock-step with what hate-mongers such as Robertson say, may even break with him over this one.

    Nobody wants their own kids to die of a preventable disease.

    And the people who already subscribe to anti-vax CT aren't going to listen to reason if it was served up to them with hot fudge sauce, whipped cream, and a cherry on top.  Those are the people toward whom the new law is targeted.  

    BTW, don't forget, Bill Maher is also an anti-vaxxer.  So we have some pretty serious housecleaning of our own to do.  

    People who espouse that shit need to be driven out of the media, thoroughly discredited, and abjectly disgraced.  

    And anyone who doesn't believe in vaccination or sanitation, should go live in a closed community somewhere, under collective self-quarantine.  

    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

    by G2geek on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 06:58:22 AM PDT

    •  I hope you're right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek, Avilyn

      There are seven comments on that CBN story--and not one of them even suggests, "We can't do this."

      Romney-Ryan: America's Rollback Team

      by Christian Dem in NC on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 07:32:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ohboy... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avilyn, ebohlman

        ... crazier and crazier still.

        It's too bad their kids (and others' kids) become the victims of their craziness.  If someone wants to remove themselves from the gene pool that's their choice, but when it's their kids or their neighbors' kids, that's where the law has to step in.

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 08:10:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hmm, had no idea this guy was even still alive (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koosah, G2geek, ebohlman

    guess this is just another example of Billy Joel's 1970's wisdom . . . .

  •  There's also another angle. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avilyn, Catte Nappe

    If a religious exemption can be removed in the name of public health concerns, that opens up any other religious exemption for removal under the same argument if applicable.

    The first sex ed I was offered in school was in the fifth grade. The first not requiring a permission slip signed by parent was junior year - after a few STD scares in the high school, a repeatedly pregnant middle schooler, and untold other things I never heard of later.

    There were girls in my grade who no doubt had their first sexual education after their first period.

    Requiring at least a basic sexual anatomy class before or at least at the beginning of puberty ought to be a public health issue. And that argument, if the religious exemption were removed for vaccines, would let sex ed not only be opt-out instead of opt-in but would squash the ability of fundamentalist parents to remove their children from the class.

    Prayers and best wishes to those in Japan.

    by Cassandra Waites on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 07:46:39 AM PDT

  •  Wow (0+ / 0-)
    only be able to opt out after participating in an information session which discusses the risks involved if kids don't get their shots.
    You mean they have a problem with a law requiring an educational discussion before a person makes a medically related decision? Guess they are also out there shooting down all those mandatory ultrasounds for those with problem pregnancy, too.

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Aug 27, 2012 at 09:19:54 AM PDT

  •  Compromised immune systems? (0+ / 0-)

    If God hadn't wanted plagues and pestilences to sweep across the land, they wouldn't exist, would they? And besides, people with weak immune systems are meant to die when the epidemic strikes.

    Isn't that starting to sound like evolution, though?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site