I commented on another thread that this bill is nightmarish. In reading the article again, I still think the bill is nightmarish, but I noticed quote-unquote “high risk populations” are being targeted by the home visits.
I’m not sure how “high risk populations” is defined, but I’m making a guess:
I remember living in a city where city employees drove around in a van providing free formula, diapers, etc., to new (low income) mothers for their babies. Though I never accepted anything from them, I did allow them to come into my home once or twice. It was clear they were using the service as an excuse to come in and look around, check the baby, the home, my husband, me, etc. They asked a series of questions including questions like, “Has anyone hit you in the past three months?”
We were living in a terrible apartment, but I guess I passed the test. When we moved, I donated clothes and diapers to them. But, I got the impression that many of the people they were visiting were in very bad shape (such as drug addicts), and the babies were in risky situations.
I’m guessing those are the people who would be targeted by “vaccination teams”.
To be clear: I OPPOSE this bill and door-to-door vaccinations for anyone. But, my husband said, “How would the gov’t pay to have every home visited?” and I started figuring it probably will start in low income, high crime areas where everyone is used to the city coming around and checking.
UNLESS high risk populations is being defined in another way, for example, by age. A very scary bill.
I could see them defining *high risk* as those who don’t kowtow to the latest government dictates.
Don’t believe in vaccinations? Your child is high risk.
Isolated from the school environment where someone can keep an eye on them to check for abuse at home? High risk.
Christian worldview that’s labeled as *intolerant* and *homophobic? High risk for psychological abuse.
Own a gun? Smoke? Drink?
Can you tell I don’t trust the government?