Stakeholder #2

     This blog entry is about the primary stakeholders' claims (from the politicians who are supporting the SB 277) have said.  It will be a little different than the previous entry, simply because the politicians aren't just saying their opinions, but they have factual evidence supporting their claims.

1. Describing the Politicians                                                                                                                  The politicians who are supportive of the SB 277 vaccination bill appear to be very smart and intellectual to the Californians who also support the bill.  However, to the people that are opposed to the vaccination bill, these politicians appear to be taking away the individual rights of people, and their liberties.  These politicians make their points through speeches they make in public or in court that people can find on the internet on places like YouTube and Vimeo.  These politicians are supportive of FaceBook pages and the main Vaccinate California website.  The politicians don't have a specific page for themselves, but you can find quotes and claims from them in many different types of articles.  

DonkeyHotey. "Republican Elephant and Democrat Donkey- 3D icons".
10/19/11 via Flicker.Creative Commons Generic Public License. 

        2. Three Claims from the Politicians       

• "It is perfectly legitimate for the state to regulate behavior, which is what SB277 does," (Reiss 1)  
• "I ran to be sure we keep our communities safe and healthy.  That's what I ran on; that's what I told the voters.  And I feel that this bill, this law now, is actually a shining example of me keeping my promise to the people of my district." (Pan 1)
• "One child's death is one too many, especially when it may be preventable.  With the recent deadly outbreaks of measles and influenza, we must do everything in our power to protect California's children who spend time in day care." (Mendoza 1)

        3. Claims Explained

• This claim made by Professor Dorit Reiss, a vaccine law expert at UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, CA, is pretty reliable.  She has been studying vaccinations and epidemiology since 1999 in Jerusalem.  There she worked for the Ministry of Justice Public Law.  Now she focuses her studies on vaccinations and exemption laws.  It is because of her credentials that make her appear to know what she is talking about and why her claim is a reliable source.  Objectively, this claim is a good source of information for supporting the politicians that created this bill in the first place.  Reiss has a good reason for saying what she said.  She said that requiring school children to be vaccinated is not a violation of the law according to the court case Serrano vs Priest.  However, choosing to not get vaccinated is a behavior and not a fact of one's existence like wealth or race. That means that the behavior is not a problem when regarding the legality of the new law.  So, Reiss states facts and emotions very successfully.  
• This claim made by the democratic California Senator, Richard Pan, who is also a pediatrician, is very credible.  It is objective and supports the politicians that are all in favor of the bill.  He is credible because he not only has a medical background from Johns Hopkins University, but he also has a political background.  Pan clearly notes how he is all about helping the people in California.  He brings out emotions, not as many facts, but he has credibility towards his constituents.  The weight is really on this statement by Senator Pan because he has a strong connection with the people of California.  
• This claim made by democratic Los Angeles Senator, Tony Mendoza, was a former school teacher and has an emotional claim that helps support the politicians that created SB 277.  He authored 10 bills that Governor Jerry Brown signed.  Mendoza has an emotional connection to his constituents when he says that "we must do everything in our power", showing the people of California that the politicians are really trying to help out and not trying to take away any of their rights.  Mendoza makes it clear that in order to avoid unnecessary deaths in the United States, vaccines are obviously the solution, and in order to get that health in order, this bill needs to be passed.  He mentions the children, which really brings out the emotional aspect of the controversy.  It is quite biased, considering he was a previous school teacher, however, it is objective considering, he is just trying to get the support for the SB 277 law.  

         4. Differences in Claims

               The main part of these claims by politicians that are different than those of the first stakeholders is that they have an educational background that makes their claims reliable.  The politicians have a bit more background knowledge than those of the parents.  Although both stakeholder groups have an emotional aspect of their claims, the politicians seem to know how to do it a little bit better.  These stakeholders have the most in common with the doctors that have an educational background on this topic as well.  They have reasonable evidence for backing up what they say.  So, in that aspect, they have some similarities with each other.  However, this group of stakeholders has the least similarities with the stakeholder group of the parents who are not educated on the subject matter.  The parents in that group are more basing their claims on personal beliefs while the politicians in this stakeholder group has more education and knowledge backing their claims.