The mother could teach her child whatever version of history she wants. But she doesn't get to take the child away from the father when they have joint custody.

Probably because of the huge health risks that are inherent in not vaccinating?

That study has been retracted.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lan...

I find it difficult to accept the idea that a parent can "kidnap" her own daughter over whom she has shared custody, and apparently had custody at the time of the alleged kidnapping...

What was that gibberish about wanting her to learn about the Confederacy but not black history? The two are kinda, sorta somewhat linked, I would say.

Is she also going to be taught Filipino history? Eskimo history? Asian history? And if so, why?

I'd kidnap her to keep her out of preschool, period. A child has no business in school before the age of six.

And anyone who claims that our schools are not indoctrination centers is either a complete idiot or a complete liar.

There is no such evidence against vaccines. I agree with the rest of your post.

When the father has partial custody, and the mother takes the child away so the father can't see the child, that qualifies as kidnapping.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out why the state gets to relate their version of history on a child, emphasizing the parts they think important, even when they're not, and yet the person who created the child, the person who could have, without consulting anyone have ended the child before birth, doesn't get to decide what historic narrative her child is exposed to.