This prospectus is outright embarrassing to me now. There is no credibility, citations, no real detail about what side of the argument I was going to take, and only a single solution. It seems this prospectus's sole purpose was to confuse my readers about my topic. It's also very informal, which one of my peer reviewers pointed out to me in class. I didn't work very hard on this, I thought I could get away with it because I had just done so much work on the HCP, but as soon as I saw all the problems that my peers were pointing out, I knew I had to do a far better job on my first draft. 

                                                                           Advocacy Project Prospectus

1. Problem: I will be continuing the conversation about vaccines, and whether the California state government has the right to enforce such strict vaccination laws. This newly passed law, which goes into effect in July of next year, is directly targeted towards school-aged children, requiring a certain amount of doses of a certain amount of immunizations, otherwise, the child will not be allowed to attend school. Many are outraged about this bill, and have been petitioning to have it repealed, but so far, their efforts have failed. The issue is not whether children should or should not be vaccinated, instead the issue is that parents are losing the right to consent to a medical procedure for their children, and thereby a right to freedom of speech. However, it is still a public health issue, and it is clear that California’s legislators are going through with this law for the sake of the greater good.
2. Debate: There are many parents that are skeptical of vaccines, whether it’s because they still believe that they cause autism, or that they pose an unnecessary risk to the health of their child, or generally because there is a history of mistrust and skepticism around the nature of vaccines. There are many advocates such as Jenny McCarthy and Joseph Mercola, who actively advocate against vaccinating at all. They believe vaccines are dangerous and should not be injected into children due to unnecessary risk. However, there are countless doctors and scientists, working for organizations such as the CDC or WHO, that try and explain that vaccines are in fact safe, effective, and necessary. One physician, Dr. Albeitz, has a blog called “Science Based Medicine” that uses day-to-day examples from his work in Aurora, Colorado, to justify the need for vaccines, and an outreach to the public regarding the safety and proven scientific facts behind vaccinations.

• Solutions: I spent a lot of time thinking about potential solutions, and I came to the realization that forcing parents to vaccinate their children is probably not the best course of action the government could have taken; and repealing the law in accordance with the parents’ wishes is just not realistic either. Bottom line is, parents have a certain right over their children’s bodies, and the government has the right to enforce strict rules regarding public health, but each side must be willing to compromise a little.

          Firstly, the government should be working on vaccine-positive propaganda, and circulating it within the public, so that the concept is not so foreign and scary to skeptical parents. Studies have shown that the level of education of the parent does not correlate with their tendency to vaccinate. However that does not change the fact that vaccine information is something that parents either hear from doctors directly (during informed consent meeting as required by AB2109), or the common misinformation being spread through social media and questionable sources. Considering the magnitude of this issue, the government should be working on policies to increase awareness of the dangers of vaccine non-compliance, and educate the public about all the risks and benefits of vaccinating their children.

          Secondly, enforcing a one-size-fits-all model is just not realistic of the government to expect of its people. Therefore, some leniency should be allowed for the extremely hesitant parents in the form of a delayed vaccination schedule. Not many people are onto this idea, but Dr. Bob Sears from Dana Point, California has some recommendations for parents that will put their minds at ease, and yet still comply with the law. Dr. Sears’ vaccination schedule doesn’t begin until after the child is two months old, as opposed to only hours old (or in some cases, exposed to vaccinations while still in the womb), allowing the baby’s immune system to mature a bit before exposing it to a “chemical overload.” Not only does Dr. Sears’ vaccination schedule start later than usual (but still earlier than most other ‘delayed-schedule’ advocates), but he also recommends spacing the vaccinations out so that a child may receive no more than two at a time, in contrast with some vaccination appointments administering at least 6 at a time. Again, there is no laws or policies going into effect on this topic, but I think it would be a viable option for a lot of parents that are hesitant to vaccinate their newborn children. This idea should be included in some revised draft of SB277, as it still allows parents to delay an intense vaccination schedule, all while still prohibiting parents from not vaccinating their children at all for personal or religious beliefs.

1. Working Thesis: Education and flexibility are key in this debate. I find it of the upmost importance that the California state legislators fund an education outreach program to parents who are debating whether they should vaccinate. But for those that are overly hesitant, a delayed schedule should be an option for them. Many vaccination enthusiasts will say that a delayed schedule is putting the child at risk, but it seems to be the most viable option considering being vaccinated later than normal is better than not being vaccinated at all.