Government overreach? Loaded question is loaded… but I’m bored, so I’ll bite.
The government has a duty to watch out for the greater good. If there is a danger to society at large, then they have not only the right, but also the responsibility to deal with it. The point of mandatory vaccinations is to keep people from dying needlessly.
While I would like a minimally invasive government myself, I expect the government to protect me from certain preventable dangers and mitigate the unpreventable ones. Terrorist attacks, killer viruses, armed robbers… I expect my tax dollars to be used to help protect me from those. And I don’t want to be put in preventable danger just because some wingnut with a head full of scientifically discredited ideas goes screaming about their right to be a biohazard. If they have that right, then any other US citizen has the right to do less dangerous things like drunk driving as well.
I say that there is enough of a risk to the general public here that government intervention is required, at least so long as we don’t have our act together.
@livelaughlove21 I think you are missing something. Look up “epidemiology”, “contagion”, and “carrier” and you might start to get it. Also, Herd Immunity has a minimum threshold that some areas have dropped below. Measles is highly contagious. If you knew the math on how fast it could spread, I’m pretty sure you’d be more concerned than you are.
Now, if you care only about your own kids and don’t care if other parents lose their children, then I suppose it is none of your business, even if one of your kids served as the carrier that gave that other kid their death sentence… or if one of the unvaccinated kids infects your kid and you find out that your child is one of the few that the vaccines doesn’t immunize. (Yes, vaccinated people can be asymptomatic carriers, or even catch the disease; vaccines are not 100% effective.) Somehow, I get the feeling that you do care though, so that kind of makes it your business.