The power of III

Summum ius summa iniuria--More law, less justice

19 December 2011

California law allows 12 year olds to consent to vaccines and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases without parental knowledge

AB499, approved by Governor Brown in October 9, 2011:

The state of California has just passed bill AB499, which will permit minor children as young as 12 years old to be vaccinated with sexually transmitted disease vaccines like Gardasil without parental knowledge or parental consent. This means that if you live in California, school or medical personnel would be allowed to vaccinate your child against an STD without your ever knowing it.
At issue, of course, is whether 12-year-olds are mature enough to fully analyze the benefits versus risks of vaccination (or any medical treatment for that matter), or recognize the alternatives to STD prevention, such as abstinence. Meanwhile, a child could suffer a vaccine reaction and the parent, not knowing the child had been vaccinated, could mistake it for the flu or another condition, delaying getting help until it is too late. LINK.

Another perfect argument for States' Rights, minarchism, republicanism (as opposed to pure democracy), and libertarianism:

1. Smaller government = less incentive for lobbying organizations to exist.  Big Pharma wouldn't have this reach.

2. Smaller government = more of a chance for the sovereign people to control their republic and hold their elected representatives to their mandate.  The people should know where their representative lives, so that they can express their pleasure or displeasure with the job performance of the representative.

3. We have a Natural Right to private property, including what we put in our bodies

4. A twelve year old is unable to understand risks, benefits and alternatives: They will do what the person in the uniform tells them to do, unless they have been specifically taught otherwise.

5. States' Rights: If a State is too Progressive or Conservative for the individual, there are 49 other experiments in democracy happening that could be considered as optional places to live: this applies to California here, since this law is state-specific.  Unfortunately, there are very conservative areas of Northern Cali that probably don't cotton to this idea.
Only options: Move to another state, secede, openly defy the law and become a criminal, or submit to the will of the majority.

6. In a republic, despite the will of the majority, certain rights are not to be infringed upon. In a democracy, the will of the 50.1 percent is imposed on the 49.9%.


  1. were a state official to vaccinate my 12 year old child with ANYTHING that I did not specifically tell them they could, I would vaccinate his or her ass with my 44 year old foot. (boot included at no additional cost)

  2. I use to live in Far Northern (Siskiyou County) California. It was cattle and hay (alfalfa) country up there and folks were very conservative. Unfortunately, we were overruled by the millions in the cities. True democracy at work, negating the rights of the individual. My wife and I still own eighty acres up there, but will never live in "Californica" again.

    It is that way in Oregon, as well. In the country - conservative. In the cities - liberal. Hell, it's that way even in Montana - why else would the state elect two Democrats for senators? Especially someone as Marxist as Baucus, who fought for Obamacare.

    Having another state to move to means bupkus if pretty much all of the states are dominated by the large number of liberals in the cities. We are suffering from too much democracy, and too little republic.