Thursday, May 10, 2012
I’d like to go on record as stating that I have never used an artichoke as a marital aid, and what’s more, my husband hasn’t had to “resign” himself to my cooking, he quite enjoys it! (“Wildly creative home artichoke recipes – from chips to cakes – and a peek at the passion behind them,” May 3-9). Thanks to Mark C. Anderson for a great article, I was honored to be included. - Arden Eaton | via Web
There is a reason doctors don’t take kids who aren’t immunized (“Parents cringe over vaccine bill,” April 26-May 2). Quick example: An unimmunized sick kid comes in with measles. The child sits in the waiting room next to a baby who is not fully immunized. The sick child coughs and sneezes and the baby breathes in the germs and gets sick. Measles in a baby can be deadly. Unimmunized children are at risk as well as putting others at risk. I support a parent’s right to choose. However, it is best to get clear and truthful information before making that decision. - KMSmith | via Web
AB 2109 has passed out of appropriations, so it is on its way to the assembly floor now. This is pretty amazing considering that if a doctor’s visit only cost $10 for each Medi-Cal kid to go to the doctor for the waiver (and there are about 3.5 million of those, so let’s guess that 1 percent or 35,000 are non-vaccinated children), then this bill is going to cost on the order of $350,000 each year to the state of California. This is well over the $150,000 cap the bill has to cost less than in order to leave appropriations. My numbers have simplified assumptions and extremely conservative, low-ball figures, so my question is what is driving this bill? The answer is, if you want to know, then just follow the money.
If this bill was going to do what they say it is supposed to do then it wouldn’t be private doctors who had to grant the vaccine waiver. It would be a county or city office where all law-abiding citizens would have to go and hear the government’s talk before getting the waiver (and this version be cheaper than what Medi-Cal is going to have to pay out).
Instead of a vaccines, what if this was about riding a bike and a bike rider had to go to the local gas station to get a waiver to ride a bike for the year. It is not lawful to make a private citizen responsible for granting or taking away rights of other private citizens. That is what this bill is about regardless of what degree is hanging on the guy’s wall. - MontereyMan | via Web
Many letters have erroneously referenced the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and the vaccine that can protect women from acquiring HPV as a sexually transmitted infection (STI). AB 2109 does not address the HPV vaccine nor does it require that a teenage girl receive the vaccine. The public policy question raised last year, in another bill, was whether a sexually active teenager should have access to the HPV vaccine without parental consent similar to previously established rights for all adolescents to access confidential counseling regarding birth control and sexually transmitted infections.
AB 2109 pertains only to the list of child immunizations currently recommended by the California Department of Public Health, including polio; diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis; measles, mumps, & rubella (MMR); and varicella. Further information can be found on the State of California Public Health Department website.
Clearly, there exists a wide range of beliefs on this issue. While some parents will oppose any level of regulation related to their decision regarding child immunization, I supported AB 2109 because I concluded that it strikes an appropriate balance designed to protect individual and public health while respecting and affirming a parent’s right to decide. - Assemblymann Bill Monning | via Web
The increasing fees for attending a CSU have me concerned (“CSUMB faculty vote on strike after contract negotiations grind to a halt,” April 26-May 2). I am a student at CSUMB and my experience there has been memorable, thanks to the small class sizes and professors I have had that are allowed their “academic freedom.” The teachers striking will hopefully make this issue more apparent to CSU system. The teachers, like the students, are not getting their needs met. As they cut down the units students can take in a semester, students will remain at the CSU longer than they need. I want to praise the California Faculty Association for making this issue more apparent. If the CSU system does not get changed, students will be getting a poor education for a higher price. - meg000hawkins | via Web
The Maternity Market
Thanks very much for writing about this (“Local hospitals battle for the earthy birth market,” April 26-May 2). As a woman prepares for the awesome ritual of birth, the more she understands about the process and what’s expected in the place she will be, the more power she has over her experience. I’ve been investigating hospital differences myself for the information of my prenatal yoga students. As you mentioned, there is a difference in the NICU facilities in each hospital. I am starting to learn that these differences result sometimes in the transfer of babies and mothers to other facilities – sometimes as far as the South SF Bay Area or San Francisco, and babies can be separated from mothers. A possible follow-up story? - arrie | via Web
I am glad that this subject is getting the attention it deserves. Giving birth is a defining moment in a woman’s life and making the decisions for yourself is empowering. But I don’t think those that are seeking a natural childbirth should be tagged with the “crunchy” label. How about “educated” or “well-read” instead? Or just women who want the best for themselves and their baby because that is what it comes down to. - Malinda | via Web
A caption misstated the proportion of campaign contributions to Byrl Smith from the Monterey County Business PAC (“Jobs vs. Shrubs,” May 3-9). The PAC contributed 20 percent of the funds raised from January to March.
Don’t vote yet!
Vote-by-mail ballots may be arriving in your mailboxes this week, but hold off on checking those boxes and sending it back in: the Weekly’s endorsement board has been meeting with candidates for the past few weeks and will run its endorsements in next week’s paper. See who we think you should vote for, and why, when the paper hits the stands on May 17.