The Controversy Surrounding the Vaccinate All Children Act: Exploring Public Opinions on Mandatory Vaccination Policies

Abstract

Interview Assignment report. H.R 2527 Vaccinate All Children Act. Our health is an essential aspect of life. The New York Times chose to poll on the eminent Vaccination Children Act due to the prevalence of measles and contagious diseases. Vaccinate All Children Act of 2019 bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from awarding grants to public entities of a state for preventive health service programs unless the state institutes specific vaccination requirements for its public schools. The vaccination act exempts students who are likely to be endangered by the vaccination only if ascertained and confirmed by a physician. The bill has faced a lot of controversy from the public, who have different opinions on vaccinations. Vaccination has been challenged with personal, medical, and religious beliefs. The main goal of mandated immunizations is to protect children and society at large from contagious diseases. On 16th February 2021, the New York times conducted public opinion polls on ten individuals to understand various Vaccination Children’s Act issues. The data collection method was social media. The social media platforms used included Twitter and Facebook, and individuals were responsive. Most citizens in the US are on social media. To access quick information, social media is the solution. When people are amused on issues concerning the government, they air out their views on social media platforms, making research and polling easy. The poll questions focused on implementing the Act, control, i.e., whether federal or state involvement and taxes in the U.S. The New York times interviewed ten individuals on their opinions of the Children Act bill on vaccination. The interviewees were asked if they supported the implementation of the Act, but their Responses were intriguing. The New York times also sought to ask what the children's Act entailed, including the Act's propositions. The interviewees were questioned whether the state or the federal government should be involved regarding the control and implementation of the children vaccination Act. The New York Times asked the interviewees why they disagreed with the proposal and what needs to be done instead. They also linked the Children Act's proposition with taxes; the interviewees were asked to express their opinion on tax rise due to the Act's implementation. The choice of questions was based on the heated debate in Congress on who should finance the bill (taxes), whether the bill is necessary, and the controversy brought about by the bill. 60% of the united states are still ignorant and cannot make their own decisions. They cannot decide whether the federal government should take control or the States to implement the Act. Decisions are made on their behalf, and they cannot voice their opinions. 70% of the US citizens know what entails the Children Vaccination Act, which is good progress. The united states believe vaccination is the key to solving eminent diseases and their outbreaks. 60% believe vaccination of children ought to be implemented due to its benefits. 30% percent say no to vaccination due to personal and religious beliefs. Personal beliefs without evidence are mediocre, and the New York Times considers the reason invalid. 50% are afraid that the vaccination story will burden them heavily when it comes to taxes. The government should get an alternative to source funds without hurting the citizens. The New York Time's first question was whether the individuals supported the Vaccination of Children Act. Six individuals supported the passing of the bill. These individuals who claim support of the bill argued that vaccines are essential in curbing deadly diseases and health is a priority in the country. They believe in the medical experts’ analysis that the vaccines are safe and exceptional. The country thrives in fact-based research that ensures accurate decisions are made for the children of the united states' common good. Three of the ten individuals withdrew their support for the Vaccinate All Children Act. They all argued that the legal measures to implement vaccination to children violate personal liberty and religious freedom. This result was terrifying. They all claimed that the Act is forceful and against their constitutional right to informed consent. They also claimed that children are not properties of the state, and they are God-given, and parents are entitled to a choice. They...