Gene Splicer is discussing:

Dr. Bob Sears, an Orange County pediatrician and nationally known critic of vaccination laws, faces the loss of his medical license after the state medical

“Doctors are not to give out more than five vaccine exemptions in one calendar year, or they endure a state investigation, regardless of the number of patients they see. That number is arbitrary.”

That's not exactly true. Stating from one article covering doctors giving out exemptions at a hight rate: “The new law would give public health officials the power to review, and potentially overturn, each exemption “

You see this as a negative? This is not arbitrary and it gives the public health officials the power to review exemptions to prevent the abuse that has occurred in the past by anti-vaxers. You make it sound like an automatic Spanish Inquisition. Without oversight and review, the new law would have no enforcement behind it.

“Schools are not to have less than 95% immunization rates, or they shall endure a state investigation, regardless of the actual percentage of people with immune disorders that might need an exemption. That number is arbitrary.”

Cite your sources please as I did regard the law. So far, you have intentionally misrepresented what the law states to make it sound diabolical.

And again, this is not arbitrary. It may be to you, but you ignore that some schools were facing incoming student population with less than 50% vaccination rates.

“Politics are personal. If you advocate that police knock on my door and demand something, I will treat you as though you are personally knocking on my door and making demands.”

And again, you show that you are not interests in the science, but anti-vaxer propaganda making thing sound threatening.

This is not about politics, but science. A science you claim to support, but appears not to in your arguments using anti-vaxer apologetics.

So, since I support vaccinations and can cite the historical track record you claim to also support, I'm part of the evil "authoritarian regime." That's akin to Jehovah Witnesses calling me "of the devil",just as irrational and just as religious.

“Violent force is the sole authority that enables government. Since it is inappropriate to force medical procedures onto families who do not consent, mandatory immunizations are an inappropriate use of the legislative system and my tax dollars. “

And that is where you are simply wrong and where legal president is against what you claim is inappropriate.

That exact same language has been used by other religious zealots to claim that it is the parents rite to deny simple and effective medical procedures and instead let their child suffer and die.

These most recent reoccurring example that comes to mind for me was a recent case regarding Jehovah Witnesses not wanting a child to be given a blood transfusion in order to say that life. In similar religious arguments, the same claims you hear anti-vaxers use including risk.

Using the logic of the anti-vaxers like you, we should allow these children to suffer life long illness and/or death in order to appeal to the ignorance of the parents.

I noticed in all of your arguments you never mentioned one major reason this bill was put in place. I'm sure you see it as simply authoritarian, but when you have numbers of vaccinated children in some districts falling below heard immunity, that is a public health crisis…

...unless of course, you don't believe in that either.