The editorial “Vaccine vote fails to protect public health” (May 5) accuses those who oppose mandatory vaccinations of using “misleading  rhetoric.” Notice  that our statistical and factual evidence is not challenged — the editorial writers just don’t like our arguments. We still maintain that for some children the risks outweigh the benefits, and informed consent is still the higher call.

However, the most inflammatory accusation is against the parents and lawmakers who hold to religious beliefs and exemption. The writers itself do rightly state: “The government cannot and should not be in a position to decide whose beliefs are sincerely held.”

But talk is cheap, because that opinion piece then turned completely on its head and shamelessly attacked those who are opposed to government control and mandatory vaccinations. Are religious tests for beliefs now going to be administered before the state grants an exemption? Is this still a free America? Or are we in Red China where government policies are severely enforced?

 

Pat Truman

Hallowell


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.