The Beginning of the End of Freedom of Choice

Post

Subscribe

No Jab, No Pay. Oh yeah, this is going to be one of THOSE articles. Vaccination is a hot topic right around the world at the moment and hey, that’s cool with me. What is emphatically uncool is the removal of parental rights and freedom of choice. Before we begin, I must inform you, I vaccinate. I believe in the efficacy of vaccinations and my children and I are all vaccinated. I am pro-educated choice, not pro-vaccination. I have no problem if you choose not to vaccinate, provided you have researched the matter and you are not just being a lazy twat who can’t be bothered going to get your child immunised. So let’s begin with a word.

HITLER



Yes, I dare to compare the horrendous Abbott Government with the man behind the Nazi’s and World War II. Hitler once said “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” Hmmm, thought-provoking is it not.

I’m going to say this, oh probably 1,000 times at least over the next little while, so here goes. This. Is. Not. About. Vaccinations. Let that sink in a minute. Got it? I’ll repeat it just to be sure. This is not about vaccinations. It is not about increasing the vaccination rate (of which Australia has one of the highest), it is not about budget cuts (except perhaps on the surface), it’s not even about opening up childcare spots by making childcare completely unaffordable for non-vaxxers. This is about control. This is about taking away a parents right to choose what they feel is best for their child and their family. This is about taking away freedom of choice. And for some reason, the masses are wholeheartedly supporting this violation.

Here are the facts: In the 2012-2013 period, 91.2% of 12 months olds, 92.5% of 2 year olds and 91.5% of 5 year olds were fully immunised. We even have the exact figures of children not fully immunised (that doesn’t mean not immunised at all, just that they were not immunised according to the government schedule.) See page 6 of this report: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES: IMMUNISATION RATES FOR CHILDREN IN 2012-13 So we have a total of 75,002 children who were not fully immunised and of that figure 14,869 have a conscientious objection recorded (see page 9 of the above report.)



14,869 children whose parents conscientiously objected to vaccinations. Hmmm ok, I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t seem like a great deal to me. Now if the whole aim of this policy is to reduce the amount of conscientious objectors (which the media and Mr Abbott keep telling us) then perhaps we should take a closer look at the socio-economic status of these objectors. Per the report presented at the 14th Public Health Association of Australia National Immunisation Conference, co-authored by B. Hull, A Dey, R Menzies and P McIntyre “Parents of children living in the top 10% of high socioeconomic status postcodes object at higher levels than parents in low socioeconomic postcodes.” (see page 4 here TRENDS IN THE PERCENTAGE OF VACCINATION OBJECTORS ON THE ACIR, 2002-2013 ) So the greater percentage of objectors are families who are, comparatively speaking, wealthy and logic would dictate that the policy mentioned above, is not likely to affect them financially so in turn isn’t likely to make them more likely to vaccinate is it? Interesting.

So I’m confused, if this policy is intended to decrease the number of conscientious objectors in the country (thereby increasing the vaccination rates) then where is the consequence for these wealthier objectors? What’s that you say? There is none? Well then, the policy can’t possibly actually be about increasing vaccination rates can it?

Another popular opinion, seems to be that this is going to save the government money by cutting payments to those who don’t have a valid medical or religious exemption. By payments I don’t mean the fortnightly benefits, I’m talking about the rebates for childcare and the end of year supplement. Just so we’re clear, the Child Care Benefit, the Child Care Rebate and the Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement are the ONLY payments that will be affected by this policy. Now, the supplement is $728 per year per child. So for the reported 14,869 conscientious objectors (should none of them change their mind given this policy) we’re looking at a governmental saving of $10,824,632. That’s a nice tidy sum of money I guess. Plenty of other cuts are being made I suppose, so yeah this is a plausible argument not even taking into account the CCB and CCR amounts saved. Except hang on a second, we’re getting back to that whole socioeconomic thing. Wealthier people aren’t going to be eligible for the bulk of these benefits so therefore they aren’t being paid out anyway. Ok so scrap that one, all we’re doing there is making it impossible for the less wealthy to actually work OR study until their child is at school and then they’ll be limited to school hours until because they won’t be able to afford Outside School Hours Care without the rebate. Which in turn will cost the government more by forcing previously working and studying parents to stay at home and probably claim government benefits.

So now I’m really confused. If the policy isn’t going to increase the immunisation percentage, and it’s not going to save the government a whole lot of money, then why on earth waste time and money on it? I have 2 theories. Both are pretty cynical to be honest so if you don’t go for that and you haven’t left already then I’d probably go now.

The first theory is that this is being pushed through in order to hide something else. Everyone knows how vehement the general public is about vaccination whether they are for or against. Announcing a policy like this was guaranteed to cause an absolute firestorm in the media and on social media, so it is the perfect way to distract from something that the government would like to do that is potentially going to be unpopular. Since nothing of the sort has come to light in my research, I am in favour of the second theory.

This is an excellent foot in the door. Go back to the top of the article and read that quote from Hitler. Oh I know, I know, this isn’t making vaccinations mandatory, parents still have a choice, blah blah blah. Don’t be so effing naïve. This is financially blackmailing the families who are already at a massive financial disadvantage to do as they are told. Even better, the Abbott government has discovered a way to take that freedom of choice away from people and the majority are agreeing with him and happily congratulate him on “the first good policy to come out of this term.” Oh. My. God. People!!! How to play right into the governments hands. Well done, a round of applause Mr Abbott because here is something you’ve done extremely well. Played the general public for fools.

So, if you, like me, like being able to make informed decisions about you and your family. And if you don’t want to end up in a place where at some point you are going to be legally penalised for raising your kids in a way the government doesn’t approve (because let’s face it, this is just the first choice that will be taken away), then fight this. Be a voice of reason, and fight this. Because if you don’t, eventually you too will end up with no choices.

{The Dos and Don'ts of Sleeping Babies}

{The DOs and DON'Ts of vaccination conversation}

{I Object to Conscientious Objection!}

{Why I Don't Talk Vaccination}

#Health
#Mothering


%matterhatter