The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Ashley Min Joo Kim
Ashley Min Joo Kim is a rising freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. Over the past few months, the proponents of universal immunization in California made rapid and momentous changes to the state’s vaccination laws. Governor Jerry Brown approved the new immunization bill, SB277, first introduced in February of this year by Senator Richard Pan, only a day after the bill was presented to him. [1] This bill comes in the wake of the infamous Disneyland measles outbreak this past winter, which affected hundreds of children not in California and across the nation. [2] The immunization legislation that existed at the time of the outbreak (and that is in effect today) requires that schools and other similar institutions only admit students that have been vaccinated against the diseases specified by the state of California. However, the law allows immunization exemptions for “medical reasons or… [because of] personal beliefs.” [3] Senator Pan’s bill, SB277, “eliminate[s] the exemption from immunization based upon personal beliefs.” [4] Many have welcomed this bill, as a way to safeguard the health of the community. They are supported by studies that show vaccines to be effective 90% to 100% of the time, especially if the vaccinations are given at a younger age. [5] Many proponents of SB277 also claim that the new law will protect children who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical circumstances. This concept of associative immunization is referred to as herd immunity. In order for herd immunity to succeed in effectively immunizing those that have not been vaccinated, 90% to 95% of the population must be vaccinated. [6]
0 Comments
 By Ashley Min Joo Kim
Ashley Min Joo Kim is a rising freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. Singapore today is seen as a commercial and “modern” city-state, continuously progressing towards reforming its society. However, some laws in place call into question how truly modern this nation actually is. Sodomy laws against homosexuals continue to exist in Singapore, despite its growing LGBT population. In 2003, the sodomy laws outlined by section 377 of the Singapore Penal Code were cast under scrutiny. Section 377, which stated, “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine,” was perceived to be outdated and therefore underwent review. [1] While section 377 was amended, section 377A, which maintained sodomy laws for male homosexual acts, remained untouched. S377A details, “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.” [2] |
|
|