[volchef]

While I had no problem vaccinating both my daughter's against this disease, I have to wonder why they are blaming infection on mothers. I was tested not once but twice during each of my pregnancies. Once in the first trimester and once at 36 weeks. I don't understand why a mother's status should be unknown after 2 tests, unless mothers in other states are turning down the tests. I have no risk factors for this or any other blood born illness at all, but I'm still not opposed to the testing. But why after testing the mothers do we need to give this to our babies? Sexually promiscuous high schoolers, yeah, but newborns?

[EggsAckley]

Once again, the majority is required to do something that actually only applies to a very small minority. Remember, it's more politically correct to just require EVERYONE to take the shots than it would be to zero in on the high-risk mothers, most of whom are probably drug users.

The old "one size fits all" theory.

[Harrison Bergeron]

Given the prevalancy of Hep B in hospital workers, it would seem that hospital vaccinations for newborns, for whom this disease represents a mortal threat, might be prudent.

I find the level and quality of scientific information put out by the vaccination alarmists slighly below that of the environmentalists. You want to see, firsthand, the results of poor or absent child vaccination programs? Travel around the world a little bit and see the deaf, blind, and retarded young people who had measles as baies, or the cripples who had polio.