Immunization Legislation May Impact Foster Care in Arizona
The following is a guest post from Debbie McCune Davis, based on her personal experience as the Executive Director of The Arizona Partnership for Immunization and an Arizona State Representative from District 30.
In Arizona, two legislators have sponsored legislation to lower the standards for families to qualify as Foster Parents. Unfortunately, our Child Protective Services Program (CPS) is overloaded with a record number of children, limited placement choices for children in care, and low staffing levels. Sadly, just when state services are most needed, the agency’s budget was cut.
My legislative colleagues believe that if Arizona will allow parents who don’t immunize their children to become foster parents, than it will be easier for families to qualify to take in foster children. They argue that any family setting is better than a shelter, and that by removing the requirement that foster families must immunize their children, the legislators believe more families will step forward to become foster care providers.
The solution they offer has sparked a debate and the discussion about immunization is being muted by the perception of a crisis. Sadly, the arguments about the safety and well-being of the foster child are lost.
Despite concerns about budget cuts, we must remember that vaccinating our children protects them from risks that are too prevalent in our communities. Are we in denial about the spread of pertussis or the current outbreak of seasonal influenza? Vaccines are essential in helping to protect children from these very same diseases.
Would we allow a family to foster a child that doesn’t believe in putting their kids in car seats? Or doesn’t have a fence around their pool? Vaccinating our children to build immunity against vaccine preventable diseases is our community standard – just like car seats or pool fences. Why would we lower those standards?
When the state takes responsibility for a child as the result of crisis, neglect or abuse, the government stands in the shoes of the parents until the child is returned to the family or becomes a permanent member of a new family. The state of Arizona, just like every other state, has specific vaccine requirements that are enforced at many levels – workplace, child care, and school entry – all for the benefit of the child and the community. Parents throughout our state and our nation adhere to these requirements, and in the rare cases when there is a medical reason that a child should not be vaccinated, Arizona, like every other state, allows a medical exemption to vaccinations. However, this is not the same as the scientifically unsupported personal belief exemptions that parents choose in not vaccinating their children. That is a choice that leaves a child at risk of contracting and spreading diseases. And I would argue that it is one step too far for the state to unnecessarily subject foster children to exposure to diseases that are preventable.
It should be mentioned that two families have approached the agency and asked for this change in the policy. One family has a documented medical exemption for one child in their household. The other family maintains a personal or philosophical belief exemption for all children in their household. Are we to consider that both these families will offer a protective environment for the foster children of our state?
As the Executive Director of The Arizona Partnership for Immunization, I stand behind the statement issued by the Arizona Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A vaccinated family provides protection that is a much better option for the children that are entrusted to us under our Child Protective Services Program. These children already have so many challenges to overcome. Let’s not add vaccine preventable diseases as additional concerns.
Debbie McCune Davis
Arizona State Representative – District 30
Executive Director – The Arizona Partnership for Immunization
AS A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER WHO HAD THE DUTY TO AUDIT IMMUNIZATION RECORDS. I THINK ALL CHILDREN SHOULD BE VACCINATED. THE PARENTS FAIL TO REALIZE WHAT GOOD THE VACCINES DO FOR THEIR CHILDREN. ALSO, IT IS PREVENTION FROM EPIDEMICS.THE VACCINES ARE MORE HELPFUL THAN HARMFUL. YET,THERE ARE SOME PARENTS WHO ARE TOO,LAZY TO GET THEIR CHILD VACCINATED AS SCHEDULED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS. MY JOB HAD ME FIGHTING TO GET THESE KIDS TO THE CLINIC AND GET THEIR SHOTS. PASS A LAW THAT GETS THOSE PARENTS TO DO AS REQUIRED. THEY DO NOT GO CAUSE THEY ARE NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH AND DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SOMEONE TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. PASS A LAW AND THE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WILL NOT HAVE SO MANY HEADACHES WITH THESE NO-COMPLIANT PEOPLE. FOSTER, PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT SAY SO. THE DHH DATA ON THE GOOD OF ACCINE SHOULD MAKE EVERYONE COMPLY.
“It should be mentioned that two families have approached the agency and asked for this change in the policy. One family has a documented medical exemption for one child in their household. The other family maintains a personal or philosophical belief exemption for all children in their household. Are we to consider that both these families will offer a protective environment for the foster children of our state?”
Are you kdding? Because one family has a “medical” exemption, meaning they know a vaccine could possibly harm their child, they should not be considered offering a protective environment for kids? Don’t you think the medical exemption is protecting their child? These are exactly the type of parents you would want as foster parents!
Does this new law have any safeguards in place mandating only fully vaccinated kids are placed in nonvaccinating homes (so no infants or newborns or kids that can’t be vaxed for a medical reason?) And how is that ensured or checked by the state first if that is the case? In a system so stressed I find it hard to believe that even if supposed safeguards are in place to ensure no child is placed at risk for a vpd that it still can’t happen. And just how many more homes would be opened if this law is relaxed? From what I am reading not many. Maybe focusing on how we can substantially improve the system would be a better use of time. Foster kids have plenty of problems upon leaving the system such as drug abuse and homelessness. Those activities put them at high risk for all sorts of disease including vaccine preventable ones.
As a former foster parent to a teenager I felt it was my responsibility to ensure that she was fully vaccinated against meningitis, flu, and HPV before we sent her off to college. Being a foster parent requires intense classroom training for both parents. It is a huge commitment and that commitment includes ensuring the safest possible home environment for the child. The state comes several times yearly to ensure a clean & safe home, diligent medical care of the child, etc….this should include full protection with life-saving vaccines and a home environment that is as free of diseases as possible.
Parents who vaccinate selectively or not at all love their children and take as good or better care of them as much as those who get them all the recommended vaccines. If there’s one thing everyone here has realized, it’s how fervently we vaccine refusers believe that vaccines are dangerous.
It would be terrible if children in need of a foster home were denied the love and care they would receive in it because you guys wish to refuse them that home unless the foster parents get them all the vaccines. You know the only disease we’re really talking about here is pertussis, a disease that may sometimes be serious or fatal among newborns but no one older. (And measles, chickenpox, and mumps would be just the same.) The vaccine is not particularly effective in preventing the disease, and the disease is not particularly serious for those older than newborns. And you want to bully these children out of loving homes when there are few such homes available just to promote your political agenda? You know that no one who really (and rightly) fears vaccines is going to submit to damaging their children for the sake of fostering someone else’s children.
@Rose (most likely a cia sock-puppet) – I would hold Foster Parents / Families to a higher standard, not a lower one. I can understand legitimate medical exemptions (that should be considered anyway – which is why it would be very important for the foster child to be vaccinated).
Otherwise, if the parent’s aren’t smart enough to read and ingest the real research on vaccines, they aren’t the type of parents I would want fostering a child (i.e. if they are conspiracy-heads, bad foster parents).
I’d also point out that the ones with a political agenda here is the antivax crowd. All news reports indicate this won’t open up that many homes to foster kids and will have a negligible impact at best in improving a system in need of serious reform especially if we are interested in addressing what happens to many of these kids once they age out of the system. Prostitution, prison, homelessness and more all of which puts them at risk for all sorts of disease including vaccine preventable disease and death. What is really imo going on here is a desire to validate the choice to not vaccinate to set the precedent for loosening of other laws requiring vaccination – such as in schools, places of employment etc. btw – I’d also say that if you have a medical exemption that should disqualify you as well. Not everyone can and should do everything that they want to do if the risk of them doing so is substantial based on unfortunate life circumstances.
Lawrence – your own kids need you, between work and this site, they are missing you. Do you ever take a break from posting here all day and all night?
I know foster families that how should I say this, are really pushing their limits on what they can do and how they take care of their families and yet you woulkd deprive a child a home because one of the other kids has a medical exemption and is not vaccinated? Rose, made some excellent points above and I totally agree.
Isn’t that an argument for adding more resources (case workers) to inspect and ensure these homes meet the high standards these kids deserve?
@Kris – I can certainly see where a legitimate medical exemption should be considered in the process & shouldn’t result in an immediate disqualification.
As to the other points, again, better not hold foster families to higher standards, not lower ones.
You have to also remember the special circumstances of many of these kids – many may have unknown or uncertain vaccination status not to mention whatever health issues they have from gestation to health problems from abuse and neglect. The homes in which they are placed have to have to meet a higher standard to handle those very special needs and circumstances. Better to spend time and money on getting more case workers as well as finding homes that are able to meet those standards. To me, making a distinction in medical exemption vs. a philosophical one makes no sense.
I do understand your points L & J.
@Kris – thanks for understanding. I know there are two sides to this & I’m sure we all want the same overall result, which is get more kids into good foster homes.
I think most do want what is best for foster kids and I have no doubt that most would-be foster families not vaccinating for philosophical reasons, as misguided as they are, truly think what they are doing is best and aren’t being malicious in their intent in wanting to take in a foster child. The backers of this, however, very much do have a malicious agenda imo because their real motive in using these kids and imo potentially further abusing these kids is to push a boarder political agenda. This is about validating their choice to not vaccinate so it can be used to eliminate requirements elsewhere. It’s a narcissistic desire to feel entitled to exercise a right such as not vaccinating with no expectation to take responsibility for the consequence that choice has in this case not qualifying as a foster parent. Taking focus away from fixing the system in a real way and finding more truly qualified homes is shameful.
These are foster children. Not their children. If my child ended up in Foster care for any reason, I’d still want the child to be vaccinated.
Most of these comments are excellent. There is no reason to allow foster children into the homes where scientific ignorance is allowed to override medical science. Immunity can be worn down over time when in proximity to carriers.
So you’re saying that you’d rather see these children in an overcrowded modern orphanage, where they would get little personal attention, than to see them at possible risk of getting a usually relatively mild disease. There is a chronic shortage of foster homes, and at a time when skyrocketing numbers of parents are aware enough of the dangers of vaccines that they are requesting vaccine exemptions for their children, you want to tell these generous people that it’s our way or the highway, that it’s much better to have no family at all than to possibly get chickenpox. Really?
I have a friend who adores children, and he and his wife have fostered a long string of babies and toddlers born to drug or alcohol addicted mothers. For many years they have lavished love, attention, and money on these children, legally adopting one of them who has autism. Every evening when he got home from work he would sit down on the carpet with a lot of toys to play with the babies. My friend told me how he cried and went into mourning for weeks every time the state agency took away one of “his” babies to give back to an unstable natural mother. He would reluctantly send them back with a truckload of nice clothes and toys, and keep in touch when he could. His adopted son had been vaccine damaged. He was unwilling to give any of “his” children vaccines.
So you want to just strike him and his wife off the list of acceptable foster homes? This improved cadre of social workers you mentioned, unless they were willing to foster children themselves, I don’t see how much they would improve the lives of these children.
Yes, if they would accidentally expose a child with a immune disorder to a vaccine preventable disease.
@rose / CIA Parker – still trying to avoid the ban hammer?
Yes there are many homes just like you describe Rose that also vaccinate. It is a win win. Finding more of them should be the focus.
@cia parker – ignoring basic science, evidence and facts is indicative of “not good parenting skills.” I don’t want to encourage a lessening of the vaccine mandates, just because someone can’t think rationally….
And again I think it is worth repeating not everyone is qualified either because of their choices (in this case ignoring the science and choosing to not vaccinate) or life circumstances (rare but medically unable to vaccinate) to be qualified to do everything (in this case foster a child.) In balancing everyone’s “rights” the balance needs to be shifted to doing what is best for the foster child. Period. This law is only looking to establish a precedent to lessen vaccination requirements elsewhere and is not going to improve the lives of foster kids one bit and has a very good chance of taking their lives as a matter of fact.
Thankfulness to my father who shared with me about this blog, this blog is actually amazing.
Here in AZ, the majority of our freedom-loving leaders support citizens’ rights to carefully select products that enhance quality of life for ourselves and our children, the American consumerism ideal. Decisions vary by family, each made with the best intentions. Our advanced degrees mean little in this debate. However, the ability to read and research material from numerous resources, including the CDC, is something every parent should do. Our firm belief, rooted both in our own experience, as well as years of research, is that for us, the risks of vaccination far outweigh the benefits. All the best to those who believe differently. With the passing of this law, many more children will have the opportunity for loving and stable homes, rather than languishing for months at a time in impersonal group home orphanages. With more than 14,000 foster kids in the system, less than 10,000 have homes. I hope some of the impassioned commentators above would consider opening their homes and hearts to children in need.
@Mrs.A – so, in that particular word salad, where there a point? Because otherwise, that was a crazy, off-topic rant as I ever saw….
Mrs. A:
Citation needed. There is difference between beliefs and fact. You need to learn that, and to please give the actual verifiable scientific evidence that the DTaP is more dangerous than diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (the latter is still circulating), and how the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles (has put one out of twelve in the hospital of the thousand in Wales with it), mumps and rubella. The citations need to be indexed on PubMed and written by qualified researches, so no lawyers, business venture capitalists, journalists, computer scientists, non-science college professors, geologists or doctors who have had their medical licenses removed.
Miss A – I am a teacher in AZ and can understand your thought process, but I happen to disagree with it.
WHT, good thing we live in a Nation where disagreement is allowed.
Mrs.A,
Keep up the good work and thank you!!!
Mrs. A paints a clear picture into part of the motivation behind today’s children receiving 3 times the vaccines I did as a child. $$. What is the logic behind vaccinating children against STD’s and diseases spread by dirty needles? What was the logic behind Arizona now allowing fully vaccinated (note: FULLY VACCINATED) foster and adoptive children into a home where a child was partially vaccinated, when those partially vaccinated children are free to attend public school? Nonsense. Thankfully, the AZ Senate, House and Governor sided with the children and passed this Bill.
Mrs. A, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Now where are those PubMed indexed studies of that research showing the vaccines are worse than the diseases.
“For the kids”, you must not like kids much if you do not want to prevent them diseases. Since when is measles, mumps and pertussis spread by needles?
Again, provide the facts.