02-13-2010, 10:40 PM
Thank you for all the information in this posting. It provided good back ground information. My one and only intent, in my first posting, was to comment on the political process and Emily's desire to speak up for her District. I really muffed it by using that resolution not knowing how contraversial it really is/was. I should have used another subject matter. For the record, I am not for or against vaccinations. Both sides of the spectrum have legitimate position statements. I am purely for freedom of choice, hoping that the choice is based on rational thinking. I am new to the local political scene and have quickly learned that it is often an irrational process from the begining to the end. And it is not limited just to the County level. I am sorry to have opened up the can of worms, especially since I am not a connoisseur of worms.
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Orts
Kjlpahoa,
Let's put aside the issue of who is writing what and if vaccines are or are not safe. Let's get down to the core issue of the resolution introduction.
The citizens are rightfully questioning the rational of this resolution. It was badly researched and flawed for the get go. It showed a complete lack of understanding of the laws and begs the question; what idiot researched and wrote the Resolution?
The main point in the resolution relating to Hawaii was mention of HRS 302A-1157 as a forced vaccination of the people. Unfortunately, whoever researched the Resolution botched that item. The referenced HRS section does not imply any forced vaccination or quarantine of the people. It is about SCHOOLS and the right of the government to require vaccinations against a disease when a certain emergency exist as a condition of children to attend public schools. Nowhere in that section of HRS does it impose any requirement on the public at large. So by referencing it, the author was attempting to take a very specific set of circumstances on a very limited population and apply it to all citizens of the County. That is fear mongering in the worst way.
Can you explain that?
Second, the quarantine that section referenced was not a quarantine of those who were not vaccinated, but a quarantine of those who were vaccinated from those that were not. In essence, the schools are required when a health emergency exist, to quarantine those who are vaccinated by limiting access to schools from those who were not vaccinated. If a child is not vaccinated, they can't enter the school. They are not forced to get vaccinated, only are barred from mingling in the school with those who are vaccinated. Again, the author of the resolution falsely implied that someone was being forced to be quarantine for not getting vaccinated when in fact it was those who were vaccinated who were quarantined while in school from those who were not.
Care to explain that?
Lastly, the resolution references SB-781 & HB 671. Those two were enacted after a review revealed that under Hawaii law, only the health department agents could impose a forced quarantine on a citizen. So if a person was identified with a deadly contagious illness, unless the health departments agents was there to take action, nobody else had the right to force a person into a quarantine. Imagine someone opening their mail and finding anthrax inside, nobody but a health department agent could stop that person from taking the bus, going to the supermarket, or walking into a crowded assembly. The Police did not have that authority under Hawaii law. The bills simple gave the police the authority when instructed by the health department. But the author of the resolution made an attempt to distort the truth by making it sound like the Police could act on their own.
Care to explain that?
The whole issue of the resolution was that it was based on a whole bunch of distortions, mistruths, and bogus facts. That is what everyone is talking about. The author of the resolution made an issue that did and does not exist. By the Councilperson introducing it with all the faults and flaws, it indicated an almost laughable stupidity on her part. That's the issue she’s being called on the carpet about.
Can you explain why she shouldn’t be laughed out of office?