I do not disagree with the thrust of what my colleague is saying, that parents should be responsible for immunizing their children. But I am afraid that we are aiming at the parents, but hurting the child. If the child is not fully immunized, to cut off that child from necessary food, medicine, or other resources is, I think, misguided. We need to encourage and promote immunizations, but we do not want to simultaneously deny a child--through the fault of the parent who does not get the child fully immunized--the benefit of the necessary nutritional and medical services they would otherwise get. That is the effect of this amendment. I respect my colleague's thrust, but do not penalize the child. The child would be the one to suffer. In cases where a child is behind in immunizations, that child could lose access to food and SSI for as long as a year while they catch up on their immunization schedule. Immunizations cannot be given all at once, I am told.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment related to child immunization and access to resources.
Share
More from Chris Dodd
I rise today to introduce the Combating Autism Act, CAA, Reauthorization. Six years ago, my former colleague Senator Rick Santorum and I introduced the original CAA to expand Federal investment for Autism research, services, treatment, and…
I frankly don't see the sovereignty issue as playing a role as an impediment as much as the sheer ability of the cartels to corrupt.
I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of Judge Robert Chatigny to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Chatigny is an individual of outstanding character, keen intellect, and extensive…
Rosa, go get yourself well. Your job is here. Your salary is here. Just take care of yourself.





