The article clearly states that Senator McCain wants to "restore health care reform to parents themselves." Senator Obama's silence is deafing on this. Remember Obama received big funding from the drug companies.

But it doesn't really matter since the polls say Obama will win and ACORN with voter fraud is helping him. Too bad!! I think we would have had two autism advocates in McCain and Palin. Obviously it ain't going to happen.

Besides autism, there is much more that worries me about Senator Obama......Bill Ayers (domestic terrorist), Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rashid Khalidi, Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan and Tony Rezko (slum lord).
Your friends and connections say a lot about a person's judgement. In the case of Rashid
Khalidi, the LA Times won't realize the videotape where Khalidi is saying anti-semitic remarks while both of them are praising each other

"Distribute the wealth" and "our troops are air raiding villages and killing civilians."
doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

But then what do I know? I'm just a dumb Vietnam-era US Navy veteran.

There is a saying........."Be careful what you wish for, you may get it."

Ray

Currently it is up to each state to determine the rules on vaccine exemptions. According to the map at www.nvic.org/state-site/state-exemptions.htm:

-- about two states allow medical exemptions only,

-- about 18 states allow medical, religious, and philosophical exemptions, and

-- the rest of the states allow only medical and religious exemptions.

If McCain believes in parents' right to choose whether to vaccinate, I wonder whether he would actually overrule the states on this issue, or would he let states continue to make their own rules. It's one thing to have a belief, it is quite another to act upon it.

BTW, Alaska does not allow philosophical exemptions. Has Palin done anything to try to bring about a philosophical exemption? If so, this is a well kept secret.

Thanks for the info, Twyla. I'm glad to see he did a go into more detail as far as autism goes. That definately does make my decision easier.

Still have not decided if I'll vote at all, it's going to be horrific to stand in line and have Jaymes in that booth with me. Don't know that I'm brave enough. But it would suck if Obama lost by one vote.

Yes, Twyla, if you continue to post Obama's non-answers, then I will continue to point out that he doesn't answer the questions that were asked of him. Plain and simple. If it doesn't bother you that he doesn't answer the questions, that's fine. It bothers me greatly. As for Obama's sincerity, that's simply a matter of your opinion. I never said McCain has answered everything, but when asked the question about vaccine choice, he answered it. No doublespeak, no nonsense about screenings. I am fully aware that Amber does not believe vaccines cause autism, but she made a statement about Obama and I responded to it. Whether one believes that vaccines are a cause or not, most reasonable people would agree the proper research and safety testing should be done.

I can't really be accused of being a one-issue voter, since I would not vote for Obama on numerous issues. However, if it came down to the vaccine issue alone, then yes, I would be a one-issue voter. Maybe it doesn't make a difference to you if my daughter gets injected with more neurotoxins, but it makes a difference to me. So don't tell me it doesn't make sense to vote on this issue alone. I'm responsible for my daughter, and that's reflected in my vote.

Amber, Twyla is correct, Obama has made statements on autism. If you read the A-CHAMP questions, he does say he will fully fund IDEA, and I think that's great. But he is disturbingly evasive on many of the other quesitons. When asked, he doesn't say how much funding he will request to study environmental triggers. He does not answer the question about investigating vaccines as a possible cause of autism. He just talks about restoring confidence and open communication, which is ironic since he won't openly answer these quesitons. He does not answer the question about supporting a large-scale federal study of health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. And as for the crucial question about vaccination choice, he gives another non-answer. He says he believes we should have the right to access screenings and refuse screenings. Nobody asked him about screenings. We want to know whether or not we will have the right to refuse certain vaccines for our children. But then, he has already made himself perfectly clear on that issue back in September when he said he was not for selective vaccination.

Amber,

Vaccination requirements vary from state to state. To find your state's requirements, you can visit the National Vaccine Information Center (www.nvic.org). This is a very informative site that will have much of the state-specific information you're looking for.

Most states do have religious exemptions which allow children who are not vaccinated according to the state's mandates to attend public school, if the parents do not vaccinate because it would be in conflict with their religious beliefs. Two states, however, do not have religious exemptions.

Also, parents in some school districts in states with medical and religious exemptions have been subjected to intense scrutiny, so obtaining an exemption is not always as easy as filling out a form.

Dan Olmsted has written about the pressures parents face to vaccinate their children here - http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/04/olmsted-on-au-3.html and about this time last year parents in Maryland were hauled into court to either vaccinate their children or suffer the consequences - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312066,00.html.

There is a national database within which all vaccination records are kept, so, yes, they do keep track of every child's vaccinations and school officials can gain access to this information and often do act on it. Some school districts are very strict and require proof of vaccination from a doctor or revaccination, if records indicate a child is out of compliance with the existing vaccine mandates.

All things considered, this is a very important subject for many in our community who believe their children were injured by vaccines. Medical exemptions are possible in all states, but parents who do not wish to vaccinate the siblings of a child with autism may not be able to get this type of exemption for all of their children.

Some states do have philosophical exemptions. In those states, parents must simply complete a form stating they do not wish to vaccinate their children to be exempted. Parents in these states can breathe a sigh of relief -- for now. (Laws can always be changed.) The majority of parents aren't so lucky.

But, visit the NVIC website. There's much valuable information there.

Those hoping that National Health Care will allow them the choice to opt out of a mandatory vaccine schedule need to remember our status in the world: we are fringe, nut cases, because we do not believe in mandatory vaccines. They think that we want polio back! The vast majority of people believe differently from us. When majority rules, as it will in National Health Care, we, the minority, will lose. The minority is us! We need health care freedom, not health care mandates. Martin

Something very important to consider is not just the party platforms concerning autism, but this new position that both candidates plan to create of Special Needs Advocate. The person who fills this position can make or break vaccine reform. Sen. McCain has already selected Gov. Palin to fill this position as he has stated numerous times. I think it is essential to consider how she would represent the autism community and vaccines. Please look at my blog where I explore this further:
http://hubpages.com/hub/5-Reasons-Why-Sarah-Palin-does-NOT-Represent-This-Special-Needs-Family

In response to the comment re: "one size fits all healthcare," I urge readers to think carefully about the rhetoric vs the reality.

Our current profit-driven health care system means that there are more profits to made, the more sick children and people there are in need of care.

Some of those who have health insurance do have choices in health providers, but most have very limited choices and many have none. And our insurance companies dictate what kind of care they will or won't pay for. I find it strange that expensive experimental drugs and treatments are often covered by insurance, but inexpensive vitamin and mineral supplements almost never are. (Yet the latter, purchased out of pocket, have worked very well for my family in numerous situations.)

While admittedly U.S. government programs are not known for efficiency, any health care system operated to keep costs down rather than profits up is more likely to work to keep people well, rather than to keep them sick. Those in charge of such a system are far more likely to "realize" that thimerosal-containing vaccines (and maybe others) are not such a great deal after all.

It is noteworthy that several other countries that do have universal government sponsored health care have generally reduced numbers of required vaccines in comparison to the US, several long ago outlawed the use of vaccines with thimerosal, some have outlawed all amalgams, and some even pay for replacement of these with fillings that don't contain mercury.

I am not aware of any plan for privatized health care via privatized insurance that would, or could, be anything other than profit-based. IMO profit-based medicine is the evil we are fighting. No one should profit from the illnesses of others, and certainly not from making others ill--as our current system seems to allow, and promote.

Given the past 8 years, it is difficult for me to hope or trust that a govt program is a possible answer, but maybe if, for a change, we have an INTELLIGENT leader who LISTENS and CARES about something other than power and money, there would be some hope that a reasonably better system for basic health care could be developed.

That is why I voted for Obama. I do think there is at least a hope that he will bring change to our current health care system. It will be up to all of us to help shape that change however. I am convinced Obama will listen if enough people speak up.

With McCain, all I foresee is more profit-driven health insurance and medical care wherein the winners are the CEO's and stockholders of hospital, insurance, and pharma companies, and the losers ultimately include EVERYONE (including those stockholders), because sooner or later, all of us end up needing some kind of medical care, and the quality available in the US is hardly what it is cracked up to be. If it were, there would not be so many deaths from medical errors, drug complications, and such a high infant mortality rate. There wouldn't be emerging epidemics of autoimmune diseases like asthma, diabetes, CFS, etc. And there wouldn't be such a large portion of the population essentially excluded from medical care on the basis that they don't have enough money to pay the high costs for the services of medical professionals, or health insurance.

Health care should be about keeping people well, not just recovering (or suppressing the symptoms) of those who are ill.
And ultimately, none of us are going to be able to stay healthy, or raise healthy children, if we don't have a clean, healthy environment to live in. There is absolutely no question in my mind as to which party has sincere concerns about reducing pollution and a sincere desire to keep the Earth's environments intact. And it isn't the party with a vice-presidential candidate (from the north country) who thinks the melting ice caps are really nothing to be particularly concerned about and under whose leadership the Alaska govt offered $2 million dollars for a study on polar bears for which the conclusions were essentially pre-determined--you know, kind of like those CDC sponsored studies on thimerosal.
See: http://www.adn.com/front/story/395540.html

Vote Obama. Or Vote Ron Paul or Ralph Nader. Anybody but Palin/McCain. Those two are not going to lead us to truth, or better govt, or better health care, or a cleaner environment, or even less discrimination against people with differences or disabilities. Listen carefully to the speeches of Palin and McCain and ask yourself if you really want people who think nothing of calling others names, as the leaders of our country. IMO name-calling does not lead to greater rationality and careful thought on anyone's part, about anything. And it certainly does not lead me to think that McCain/Palin can teach others to treat ALL people with respect and fairness.

We need a leader who at least tries to see the world through the eyes/experiences/viewpoints of others, and treats everyone with respect. IMO, Obama meets this criteria.

Sue

Whomever wins I say 1=21=2009 will be a great day to start flooding the White House switch board and fax machines with calls.

What do say?

The bitter partisan battles aside I hope an pray both parties and the election day winner will put our children first.
Especially before developing any kind of national health care system.
Not one of us whether Republican, Democrat or Independent wants to see another child lost to vaccine injury.
We have lost all informed consent, recourse through the court system and in some states the ability to exempt.
What have we gotten in return, Autism rates that supersede the last decade's figures.
A vote for vaccine choice is a vote for our future.