Clovis columnist: Parents, not government, must decide if children need COVID shots
Parenthood and its inherent rights and responsibilities are under attack. When a child is born, there is no doubt what the absolute top priority of raising that child is: protection. Parents know their individual children and their specific needs best. And yet we find politicians, governing bodies, and a recent Fresno Bee column seeking to diminish parental authority and consider the defense of parents’ most basic rights as “distractions.”
It that recent column, the writer made a weak attempt to discredit the Clovis Unified School District board by accusing them of debating the issue of COVID mandates to serve as a “distraction” from more important business. The board serves the parents of the district and their children. The fact that these board members would be defending parents’ right to determine whether newly developed vaccines should be administered to their minor children shows they were paying attention during lesson No. 1 in “How to represent people.”
The COVID-19 vaccine has been around for less than two years. Our state Legislature seems poised to add this vaccine, still in its infancy, to its list of enumerated, required vaccinations for children to attend public schools for which the personal belief exemption has been removed.
For comparison, the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella) is on that list, but those vaccines have been around individually since 1963, 1967, and 1969 respectively. They were combined into the current MMR formulation in 1971. That means there is over 50 years of data and results for parents to review. We are talking about mandated, also known as forced, vaccination of children with a vaccine for which there are no 5-year, 10-year, or 20-year studies. We are still months away from being able to have a 2-year study … and that is only for adults.
Let me be clear, I believe the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risks for adults, and I encouraged my parents to get it as soon as they were able. My husband and I have been vaccinated. However, the calculations of risk and benefit change drastically as you move down the generational line. In fact, Sweden recently released a study that concluded the cost-benefit analysis of vaccinating children ages 5-11 indicated against vaccination due to the minimal risk of serious illness.
And do not forget our state legislators are further attempting to impede our parental rights with a bill to allow 12-17-year-olds to receive the COVID-19 vaccine without parental notification or consent.
Unfortunately, parental rights regarding vaccinating children is not the only battle we face. The question of ultimate decision-making power for educating children is being vigorously debated. Parents have awakened to what is happening in public schools across the nation thanks to pandemic-initiated “distance learning.”
Parents were hearing what was going on in these online classes in ways they had not when their kids were in classrooms on school campuses. They began attending school board meetings and advocating for their children to be back in classrooms with in-person instruction because they would not allow politics to distract them from the overall health and well-being of their kids. They spoke out against critical race theory that pitted kids against each other as victims and oppressors and taught them to discriminate based on skin color. Parents brought lawsuits against schools and districts that engaged their children on issues of gender identity and transgenderism without sharing any information or conversations with the parents.
If we have a school board that is willing to be vocal about the sacred nature of parental rights, we should be commending, not criticizing them. In fact, I dare say we should encourage them to honor their oath to support the Constitution to the point of not only speaking against, but actively defying, those who come against parental rights.
This story was originally published February 5, 2022 at 5:00 AM.