Lauren Novak and Lanai Scarr News Limited Network August 18, 2013
OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott said he supported the Government's tougher stance on vaccination "in principle".Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised to strip parents who refuse to vaccinate their children of family payments worth more than $2000.
Mr Abbott said the Coalition supported "in principle ... the idea of all reasonable measures to ensure that vaccination rates are high"
This Murdoch owned paper has taken two quotes and turned it into a story attempting to convince you that there is bi-partisan support for the economic violence being proposed to be meted out to people who exercise their lawful right to not poison their families with vaccinations.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is today expected to announce the lifting of the existing exemption for such parents in a bid to lift childhood immunisation rates.
What happened to that promise Rudd made three sentences ago when he "promised to strip parents who refuse to vaccinate their children of family payments worth more than $2000"?
Under the proposal children will have to be fully immunised in order to receive the Family Tax Benefit Part A end-of-year supplement.
The supplement is worth $726 per child each year. It is only paid once a child is fully immunised at one, two and five years of age.
The government argues this provides families with an incentive of more than $2100 to ensure their children are fully immunised.
Under the latest Rudd proposal, exemptions will apply on medical and religious grounds only.
The existence of unimmunised children has given rise to concerns that children in some communities are at risk of contracting diseases such as measles and whooping cough.
Are these concerns prevalent in all communities or only in ones with an axe to grind against people who wish to exercise their lawful rights in a different way? Where is the factual evidence that substantiates this claim? Is this statement anything but an election trail promise to a Murdoch owned paper with a stated opposition the Rudd government.
Let us all think about the fact that these claims are from the same political party who told us that by 1990, no Australian child would live in poverty, and, that it would not introduce a carbon tax if elected @ the last election.
"The science cannot be disputed,'' –Whilst this is true, this statement is, similar to the climate change charade, a political statement designed to silence and stymie debate, conversation, education and research– Mr Rudd said.
"Immunisation is the safest and most effective way for parents to protect their children from disease, and one of the most important public health measures at our disposal.''
- With wires
ETHICAL DONATORS, COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.
AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY MIKIVERSE HEALTH HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS,DIVERSE, AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST,
PLEASE CONTACT: firstname.lastname@example.org