Lorena – Just say ‘No’ to Corporate America and Big Pharma

Eric Andersen Eric Andersen 36 Comments


One of the greatest threats to our pursuit of happiness are the irrational doses of fear du jour being served in our media diets. I can’t think of a more effective tool for destroying the American ideal of limited government than “fear”.  Whether it’s an irrational fear of ISIS or an irrational fear of Ebola or an irrational fear of  ISIS members with Ebola we seem to be hopelessly vulnerable to the progressive siren song of “If you want security and protection you must give up your freedom.”

Enter Dr. Richard Pan (D), a pediatrician and state senator representing parts of Sacramento and Yolo Counties and Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez who are using the recent measles outbreak at Disneyland (See Rahm Emanuel Playbook: never let a crisis go to waste) to take away another freedom – a parent’s right to exempt their child from a vaccination. If SB 277 is signed into law parents will be forced to vaccinate their child before attending a public or private school. This legislation is being brought to you by the same entity that is placing a priority on bullet trains over water reservoirs.

Never mind the contradiction of how an unvaccinated child poses a risk to a vaccinated one. Never mind that nobody died from the Disney “crisis”.  Never mind valid parental concerns of higher incident rates of autism, allergies and other maladies. Never mind that while healthy children with the right genetic makeup might eliminate the known neurotoxins of mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde that there is a subgroup of genetically susceptible children who cannot. These individuals are genetically “hyper-susceptible” to vaccine damage.

SB 277 makes no mention of this genetic susceptibility, nor does the law require the state to conduct genetic screening of children before subjecting them to potentially dangerous vaccines. Parents of children who suffer from these genetic vulnerabilities are being forced by the California legislature in an aggressive, corporate-constructed campaign to coerce all children into being vaccinated.

Sen. Pan co-authored SB 277 on behalf of the public school system. The same public school system whose students are daily outperformed by home school children to the tune of 37 percentage points, with the latter operating on just 5 percent of the comparable resources. Instead of sacrificing inherent rights for progressive ones, perhaps we should try the reverse?

Senator Joel Anderson, alternatively, is once again demonstrating he is still inspired by the old fashioned ideas that many of us still hold dear. On Tuesday, Anderson was the lone figure on the Senate Judiciary Committee challenging the Democrats, big pharma and the fear mongers from further encroachment on our freedoms.

The right of parents to raise up, educate and care for their children predates all courts and schools and was already understood and acknowledged long before the United States came into existence.

Senator Pan and Assemblywoman Gonzales, please “Just say ‘No’.”


Eric Andersen is a member of the Central Committee of the San Diego County Republican Party and is the Co-Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus of San Diego County and im2moro.com. In 2012 he was the Rock Church Citizen of the Year. He holds other crazy ideas like chocolate doesn’t make you fat, it just makes your clothes shrink and the moon is still made of cheese.


Comments 36

  1. Eric,

    “Whether it’s an irrational fear of ISIS or an irrational fear of Ebola or an irrational fear of ISIS members with Ebola we seem to be hopelessly vulnerable to the PROGRESSIVE siren song of “If you want security and protection you must give up your freedom.”

    Sorry, Eric. It was the Conservatives who were spreading those two fears.

  2. You’re both right! War and invasion is one issue both sides come together nicely on.

  3. Cha Cha,

    I think you can add vaccinations to the list. I am pretty sure that there is bi-partisan support for everyone being vaccinated.

  4. Excellent points, especially regarding children with genetic predispositions. This really strikes a chord with me, as my two children have a genetic defect called MTHFR in which they don’t have the enzyme to convert the folic acid in food into a useable form. As a result, it reduces their ability to detoxify the contaminants in vaccines and the environment by 35% to 70% (the amount varies depending on whether or not a person has one mutation or two). It is estimated that 40% of the population has this defect as well as a larger number of children with autism. Most doctors who specialize in MTHFR recommend that people with this mutation do not get vaccinated, especially those with two mutations, such as myself. Here is a study that shows an association for adverse reactions in people with MTHFR and the smallpox vaccine. I suspect that if they did studies on other vaccines, it would show similar results.

  5. I’m a pro-freedom. Pro-vaxxer. My best friend is anti-vax. That’s the beautiful think about Liberty — we decide what’s best for our kids.

  6. Great article! My concern right now as a nurse is that children are now getting 69 doses of vaccines by the age of 18. No one has studied if this many vaccines are safe to receive. This is a much greater number than our generation received as children and the number has doubled just since the year 2000. We have the most aggressive vaccine schedule in industrialized nations, yet we have one the highest infant mortality rates (we are #34 – Cuba and Bosnia do better than we do). Parents want answers and until the proper studies are conducted, vaccines should not be forced on parents. I noticed in the current “measles outbreak” there were no reported deaths or serious side effects. It provides no basis to all of a sudden take away the right to chose which vaccines your children should get.

  7. Hypocrisy, I did not see anywhere in that paragraph where he said one party or the other was promoting ISIS and/or Ebola hysteria–it was just media supplying the “irrational doses of fear du jour”. Same with the measles “outbreak” that petered out after a few months with no deaths.

    Regardless, SB-277 makes no sense in California, because we already have one of the lowest rates of exemption at 2.54% for Fall 2014 among kindergarteners, and this number is almost 20% lower than the previous year because of AB2109 going into effect (for non-Californians, this new law requires a doctor to sign a personal beliefs exemption, or PBE, whereas all you had to do before was submit it yourself to the school). The apparently low immunization rates here come from two things: 1) conditional entrants to kindergarten, who are not up to schedule, are not reported again in CA Dept. of Public Health (CDPH) aggregate numbers until 7th grade, and make up 6.9% of kindergarteners. 2) the fact that no doses received by a PBE filer are reported by CDPH, so their numbers assume that anyone who files a PBE is completely unvaccinated, when in actuality fewer than 1% of children are completely unvaccinated, and a PBE is required if a parent decides to forgo even one recommended dose. If CDPH reported all doses and completely followed up on conditional entrants, it’s likely we’d find we have MMR rates of 98 or 99%. SB-277 barks up the wrong tree while completely steamrollering parental rights.

  8. BC,

    I will repeat Erik’s quote and you tell me if he blamed one party or the other:

    “Whether it’s an irrational fear of ISIS or an irrational fear of Ebola or an irrational fear of ISIS members with Ebola we seem to be hopelessly vulnerable to the progressive siren song of “If you want security and protection you must give up your freedom.”

    I concede that he didn’t use the word “Democrats,” but I don’t remember ever hearing Republicans referred to as “progressives.”

    Then there was this line from later in the post:

    “On Tuesday, Anderson was the lone figure on the Senate Judiciary Committee challenging the Democrats, big pharma and the fear mongers from further encroachment on our freedoms.”

    Actually used the word “Democrats” there.

  9. I see what you mean, Hypocrisy, I guess I missed that and just focused on what the siren song was–“If you want security and protection you must give up your freedom”. So true that this is what we are sold–and it’s not what I want to buy, since I agree with Ben Franklin. I used to consider myself a progressive and a Democrat until I realized my rights were being taken away and that in California at least, it was the Democrats spearheading the effort, mainly because they have the huge majority here. I still don’t consider myself a Republican either because of other rights they seem to want to remove or not grant in states where they have a majority. I guess I’ll just have to hang out here in limbo until there’s a party for me that is socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and upholds the constitution and individual liberty. Any ideas?

    At any rate, Eric is right about SB-277; pro- or anti-vax, you can’t ignore the fact that 97.46%+ kindergarteners are vaccinated if you follow up on conditional entrants (which I guess CDPH and/or the funds-hungry schools don’t–if we have to pass a new law to look tough on measles, shouldn’t it focus on that instead of taking away the right to make an informed decision regarding medical procedures?).

  10. The current law is keeping vaccination rates up and ensuring herd immunity. SB277 is an unnecessary addition that imposes an unfair burden on parents, particularly those who have children who have had significant reactions to vaccines and their siblings. This law will be extremely expensive due to the countless special needs children who will be denied FAPE because of this law.

    Keep medical decisions between parents and doctors. The state has no business forcing a medical procedure as requirement for an education. Yes, liberty and freedom do apply in situations regarding public health.

    Kill the bill.

  11. “I don’t remember ever hearing Republicans referred to as “progressives.”

    You haven’t been paying attention, then. I’ve called McCain, Graham, and Roosevelt progressives on this blog

  12. JA, I’m pro-choice on vaccinations. But the pitch that we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba and some other Third World countries is misleading. In the U.S., we try to save babies born as early as the 4th month of pregnancy, and count failures as deaths. Cuba is “better” than the U.S. for two reasons:
    1. They don’t count premature birth babies that later die as infant deaths. They have next to no ability to save babies born in the 2nd trimester. Indeed, all but a couple hospitals in Cuba are hell-holes.
    2. They lie about everything in their health care system. The UN tallies whatever health stats a country submits. Castro & Co. lie through their rotten teeth.

  13. There are so many logical reasons to oppose sb277, even if we leave the subject of vaccines out of it. Why on earth would any governing body waste the resources (far too many already) to implement and enforce an extremely expensive and cumbersome legislation that would trump a simple legislation doing the job? Ab2109 leverages the integrity of the doctor/patient relationship and uses that trust to facilitate a natural and voluntary shift in vaccine choice. And as previously stated, the rates are shifting as PBEs are going down. This legislation has caused undue duress to so many families on both sides of this issue and has polarized folks who once shared middle ground. It’s disgusting the way the media has handled it, the way our own representative leadership has facilitated it. And frankly, let’s face it. Pan and company have inadvertently flipped the coin on the whole vaccine and big pharma system. They have called attention to the risks, concerns, injuries, the dark side of these systems. Now everyone will know, or at least have the seeds of doubt planted and when that high profile vaccine injury case comes, not only will the state of California be on the hook for damages, but also the seeds of doubt will get their rain and sunshine in one fell swoop. The irony of it all is remarkable and the blindness of big pharma to keep pushing forward as if Americans as a whole are simply too dumb to really catch on makes me excited for the day they realize the majority will no longer drink the kool aid.

  14. BC,

    Change that definition to fiscally moderate and I will work with you to star that Party.

  15. Two points.

    First, people who can’t be vaccinated for medical or physical reasons benefit from widespread vaccination because of the principle of herd immunity or community immunity. So, the existence of individuals who can’t be vaccinated argues in favor of widespread vaccination of everybody else who can safely be vaccinated in order to protect them.


    Second, why aren’t the physical and medical exemptions in SB277 sufficient to protect persons who are genetically hyper-susceptible? Seems to me that a reasonable reading of the statute would be that if your genes make vaccination unsafe you would be covered by the physical condition exemption.

    “120370. (a) If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances that contraindicate immunization, that child shall be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325, but excluding Section 120380) and Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415 to the extent indicated by the physician’s statement.”


  16. Post
  17. Eric,

    I have no doubt that you would call out anyone who would try to take away our individual liberties and I respect that. I was simply pointing out that in the cases of Ebola and ISIS fear mongering, you called out the wrong bogeyman.

  18. Post

    Dave, I think your first point includes assumptions that some don’t hold. It assumes that all individuals being vaccinated enjoy benefits greater than the harms.

    I think your position could be construed to say the apparent benefits for the masses supersede the rights of the few.

    I think your point assumes that Sen. Pan’s comments, debunking medical studies demonstrating possible links between the MMR vaccine and autism by Dr. Wakefield and Prof. John Walker-Smith are true.

    In your harms are we considering the increased costs to our communities (medical, special ed) as well as lost productivity as families and resources are diverted away from other pursuits?

    U.S taxpayers have paid 3B in judgements to injured families. Not pharmaceuticals, families. What type of judicial system is that?

    Your point also appears to uphold a judicial system where some individuals are above the law (pharmaceuticals).

    Are we considering the emotional harms that can’t be measured in dollars to families of injured our dead children?

    Does your point take into account that those vaccinated can be the source/carrier of the virus?

    I think your first point accepts a precedent for further violence and encroachment to freedom and parental rights for the sake of a failed progressive institution – public education. For what? People getting sick? There were no deaths at Disneyland. Zero.

    How do you as an attorney uphold the natural right of owning a gun but not the natural right of parents?

  19. This bill makes no sense….there is no crisis. We have high enough vaccination rates. What is going on then? Control and Money. Is California turning into a totally socialist state? I am terrified and honestly really turned off by the democrats. Big Pharma is going to make so much money for this and then they are going to mandate vaccines on all adults and then who knows what! We have to stick up for our freedoms. Our forefathers would be so ashamed of what is happening right now. Lets take a stand!! No on SB277!!!!!

  20. Thank you!! In my view, this is not a pro-vax, anti-vax issue. This is a personal rights issue. To me it’s a violation of our constitutional rights for the government to mandate pharmaceutical use, period, especially those that contain known neurotoxins.

  21. Please vote no to sb 277! This bill will not be solving any problems Senator Pan has created. Unless the state is going to keep all unvaccinated individuals, children and adults, out of extracurricular activities out side of school, hotels, grocery stores, parks, etc. how is keeping kids out of school going to be effective? Will California start making it illegal for foreigners to visit unless they are fully vaccinated? This bill is irrational and unconstitutional.

  22. Hypo, if you call “moderate” living within our means and not artificially inflating debt then I’m in, but in today’s out of control environment it seems that the middle of the scale is still a recipe for debt implosion.

    Dave Rankin, to your first point, there are some, even immunologists, who disagree that vaccine-induced herd immunity (which is not true herd immunity due to waning immunity), or that excluding unvaccinated children from school, is sufficient to protect those individuals:


    similarly, it seems viral shedding from vaccines can infect others:


    To your second point, it is extremely difficult to procure a medical exemption, particularly in the case of newly discovered genetic defects (as the human genome project was completed only a decade ago) which are not yet fully understood by most physicians or review boards. See Dr. Tara Zandvliet’s testimony from the Judiciary Committee hearing (01:11:20 if this link doesn’t go to the right spot):


  23. Very well-written. Thank you.
    I hope, pray, and hope more that SB277 does not pass. If that day ever comes, I will leave a successful hand-built business and my home behind and move to another state.
    Nobody is going to force my children to intake toxins in their body. Even if they are vaccinated partially, I cannot give them the Hep B vaccine. Furthermore, they are not making the choice, you are, and for that, it make this bill increasingly wrong as these poor babies can’t make the decision for themselves. What’s next “forced circumcision?”

  24. BC,

    I have a mortgage on my home and modest revolving credit card debt which I do pay on. If that’ meets your definition of living within my means, than I agree that the government should do the same. If you mean that the government should stop issuing Treasury Bonds because it shouldn’t have any debt, then we are not on the same page.

  25. The US has one of the most aggressive vaccination schedules in the world and our kids are sicker than ever. We have more autoimmune diseases, asthma, allergies, neurological disorders, diabetes and cancer than ever before. Vaccines used to be for life threatening diseases and now they are made for inconvenient ones such as chicken pox. We are vaccinating newborn childrens against hep b. I repeat we are vaccinating children on the day of birth against hep b.!! Babies are NOT at risk for hep b unless the mother is positive which can be determined by a simple blood test. Hep B is transmitted by sex and more often through IV Drug use. Why aren’t parents up in arms about this? This is why SB277 can’t pass. These decisions are being made by companies who profit from excessive vaccination. Parents along with their childrens’ physicians should make medical decisions for children NOT our govt. This is INSANE!!!

  26. I find SB 277 to be a horribly, written knee-jerk reaction to the measles outbreak. As a public health professional, the requirement to fully vaccinate infants and small children against diseases such as Hep B (transmitted via body fluids, ie IV needle sharing, sex) and tetanus (non communicable) outrageous. I am by no means anti-vax, however, taking away my right to choose which vaccine is appropriate for my child is NOT OK. I will be pulling my children out of school if this bill passes. When non-biased, third party, long term clinical studies show all these vaccines to be efficacious and safe, I will reconsider giving my children all the required vaccines.
    How can a government mandate a vaccince if it’s only 40% effective? This bill is unconstitutional and criminal.

  27. People this is not about political parties this is about our rights. Our rights as parents, our rights as adults, our rights as workers, our rights to make our own medical decisions and what medical decisions are safe for our children and ourselves no matter what our condition is. It should be OUR CHOICE.

    IF your vaccinated your safe!! IF you are not, its your risk, yet if your vaccinated the un-vaccinated do not pose a risk to you because you are vaccinated. Now, If the vaccinations are not working…than more vaccinations are not going to make a difference. IF your child got injured well again unsafe drugs are a risk as every vaccination lot number as it states on the drug description insert, as your doctor SHOULD have warned you that vaccines are UNSAFE and there is a possible side effects. So again, it should be our choice what RISKS we want to take with our children’s lives and our own – NOT THE Governments!

    Oppose 277
    Oppose 972
    Oppose government control

    People, if something has been proven in any way to be unsafe, we do not force it on an individual or our children. This government should STOP being lazy and enforce that pharma make safer drugs. Yet when the government gets a 20% kick back on each drug pasted, I guess that can change our officials minds, especially if it is funneled to their pockets/campaigns. A new method or different route needs to be taken here to ensure or rest this fear that disease is going to become an epidemic if we do not control it now. Hummm, where is the epidemic? 52 children out of 3.3 billion in Californians – that’s not an epidemic that is a setup.

    Again, this is an over kill on a policy agenda that is not needed. AB2109 is working fine. Let it do its job. WE do not need government to control every movement of our lives. our phones are taped, our mail read, our lives controlled by credit scores, our insurance forced and medical treatment eliminated, and now drugs forced on our children, healthcare workers, etc…

    Our children are not spreading the diseases!!! There is NO NEED for Government control on this besides to make money. RESEARCH if you are in doubt. VAERS gives you numbers. Over 30,000 children were injured last year by vaccines. We, tax payer paid out 3.3 billion to injured parties(VICP). Check out international news, countries are suing pharmas, US can’t because of a bill passes in 1986 eliminating pharma and government from liability. Check that one out to, that is when VICP was created. They need to make up their looses and guess what this bill will do. Watch as they run from state to state doing this same thing. They just hit Maine.

    There are many reasons for this bill besides herd immunity, Which is impossible when the vaccines are not effective and most importantly unsafe (look up results of HVP vac Gardasil)

    Stop this people – write your representative so that your voice is heard and counted. Call your representative and tell them you want to keep your rights, your choice!

    Oppose 277
    Oppose 972
    Oppose government control

    This is unconstitutional, unethical and criminal.

    This has GOT to STOP and it will only stop if you stop it! Parents they are taking away your rights! Think of what could happen if this passes. They take this right away from you, they can add anything to that schedule, they will just slide it by like they are trying with this bill. And instead of your child being forced to get 49 shots by the age of 5 it will be 60 at 5 at 10 at 15 at 20 at 25 at 30, to get a job to keep a job to travel, to travel to different states, to get on a plane to drive a car… Please write your senators, assemblyman now! Time is running out. OUr grandfathers fought hard for these rights, its our turn..Please, make an effort to STOP this. It takes 10 minutes to write a letter, 2 minutes to call, 1 minute to email. http://senate.ca.gov/

    PHARMA and Gates, leave us alone. Take your depopulation agenda (People – check it out on : tedtalk) to a different world. This world and country is about helping people – not sterilizing, immobilizing and killing them.

  28. There is no issue more important to me as a grandparent and your constituent than my fundamental right to allow my children to make choices about the health of their children and my grandchildren. As a citizen of the United States of America, stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. As my senator I expect that you protect these rights no matter what issues is pushed.

    When government makes decisions to take away parental rights relative to the health of their children it must only do so when all can agree it is in the best interests of every single child. Opinion 8.08 of the American Medical Association (AMA) states, “The physician has an ethical obligation to help the patient make choices from among the therapeutic alternatives consistent with good medical practice. Informed consent is a basic policy both in ethics and law that physicians must honor…”

    This proposed legislation does not meet any of the above criteria. I feel it is unconstitutional and an infringement on my children and grandchildren’s civil rights because they get no choice. I urge you to stop this bill now.

    While the media has been very vocal regarding recent outbreaks of the measles, this legislation will require all children attending school to receive every vaccine on the government recommended childhood vaccine schedule, not simply the measles vaccine. Currently (and this number is constantly increasing), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 69 doses of 16 different vaccines between birth and age eighteen, with 49 doses of 14 vaccines given before the age of six. That is sickening. As a child I got 3. This is vaccine bulling and you must stop this.

    The data (facts) shows that many children have suffered adverse reactions to these government recommended vaccines. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) as a federal no-fault system to compensate persons (or families of persons) who are injured by federally recommended vaccines. The VICP has paid out nearly $3 billion to families whose children have died or become permanently injured by government recommended and mandated vaccines. These vaccines are not safe for all children and, therefore, should not be forced on our children without parental informed consent.

    The concept of herd immunity was originally a non-vaccinated concept yet now is centered on protecting those children who can’t, for one health reason or another be vaccinated. A very small percentage of school children statewide — 0.19 percent — have such medical exemptions. However, managed by the CDC and FDA, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports more than 30,000 vaccine related injuries annually. Since 2000, 142 Californians have suffered vaccine adverse reactions, resulting in 46 deaths of California citizens. 52.82% of these adverse reactions were suffered by children under the age of 11 months. During that same time period, VAERS reports the death of 707 American citizens. (These numbers can be confirmed by you or your staff visiting, http://vaers.hhs.gov/data.) Interestingly, since 2000, the have been four reported deaths from the measles in the United States and over 146 children in the last year have died from the measles vaccine. Herd Immunity can not happen if the vaccines are not 100% effective. Vaccines are a genetically altered toxic replica that causes more harm than immunity. If vaccines were 100% effective and non-toxic nor damaging than I could see such a bill being for the good of the people. But they are not and science has proven that through the measles outbreak and the chicken pox outbreak.
    My question to you is why is one child’s health and life more important than another child’s health and life? The answer of course is that all children’s lives are equally important and should be protected.

    My other question to you is why are we not questioning and investigating the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. When 1 out of 50 children have an adverse and injury from a vaccine, that to me is not safe. With the current recommendation of vaccines by the CDC, a child would have 69 shots entering kindergarten. Those odds are not in any child’s favor and I can only assume more vaccines will be added. When there is proof that more children are dying from the vaccine than the disease itself, I feel that is not protection yet that it is prosecution. A local school last month had a chicken pox outbreak. The only children that got the chickenpox were vaccinated children. Non-vaccinated children sat next to these children in class and played with these children while they were contagious. Not one non-vaccinated child got the disease. There were even children that had the chicken pox before, were vaccinated 2x and got it for a second time. What does that mean? Vaccinated parents were at odds. I can only assume we are changing biology and old science is not working. Will it get worse? Fine example was Disneyland – many of the children were vaccinated. The vaccines are not working yet are injuring our children. They say on the insert of the vaccination description, unsafe and list numerous damaging side effects. Knowing this, why are you not demanding for safer and effective medicines and for the writers to seek a safer and alternative avenues to achieve their agendas?

    In addition, existing California law (AB 2109 Pan) which requires consultation with a doctor before receiving a vaccine exemption for personal beliefs has been in effect for only one year. In this time there has been a 20% reduction in parents seeking a personal exemption (opt out rate dropped from 3.15% to 2.5%).

    If the goal is to increase the number of children vaccinated, then we need do nothing more than let the existing law work. Taking the unjustified and intrusive step of eliminating a parent’s right to exercise informed consent when making medical decisions for their children and potentially harm ANY child for the “greater good” is unwarranted, unconstitutional and un-American.

    You have a lot of discretion on how you wield power as a member of California’s legislature, and as such, I urge you to look closely at the data and the U.S. Constitution. While cases of measles identified in the U.S. have been used to cause panic and hysteria and led to demonization of parents with unvaccinated children, rational decisions cannot be made without a good understanding of all the facts.

    One purpose of this letter is for you to careful consideration the greatest fact that the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is not absolute. Therefore, the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking must be respected, especially when some individuals are at greater biological risk than others for suffering vaccine reactions and doctors cannot tell ahead of time which child nor adult is at greater risk for being harmed. In fact, a medical doctor administering a vaccine would never sign a paper stating that the vaccine will not harm that person.

    Please consider that science is not static and is always changing. The medical recommendations and drugs that are touted as safe today have been found in many instances to be unsafe tomorrow – from bloodletting to Vioxx to promoting low fat diets to prevent heart disease. There are hundreds of new vaccines being developed by drug companies that are completely shielded from product liability and vaccine injury lawsuits in civil court. Many of those new vaccines will be federally recommended and mandated by state health officials. If the personal belief exemption is eliminated, parents will be forced to give their children even more vaccines than are on the current government recommended schedule. This should be their choice not the pharma or governments.

    Secondly, Passing SB277 would establish discrimination and segregation for those families who chose not to consent to take the unavoidable risk of harm by performing this medical procedure. It also would violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

    The United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) ruled that separate is not equal. Nonetheless, Senators Pan and Allen would segregate all children currently attending school under a PBE, requiring them to homeschool. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the court stating: “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” If separate educational facilities for black and white children were deemed unequal and therefore illegal, then segregating unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children likewise cannot be legally justified.

    There are certainly less restrictive alternatives that would allow the government to achieve its goal of high vaccine rates without establishing segregation.

    For example:
    • California could continue to let AB2109 work, as it has decreased PBE rates by 20% in one year. It works, continue to utilize this system. It’s not broken, it works why change it.
    • The federal government’s proposed National Adult Immunization Plan avoids mandates, instead focusing on an “educate and encourage” approach that includes expanded vaccine safety research and educational outreach.
    • With better data on the actual vaccination opt-out rates by disease and by area,“educate and encourage” efforts could be more effectively focused. Because this effort could target both youth and adult populations, this would be a better legislative solution than a statewide mandate for school-aged children.

    Should this Legislature, who each swore in their oaths of office to protect the California and United States Constitution and the rights of its citizens, pass SB277, those voting for it to pass would be violating their very oath office in light of the facts stated above.

    Therefore, we ask for your NO vote on SB 277 and ensure the freedom of education is not ripped away unjustly trying to create a solution where there is not a problem.

    Now, Freedom of religion is enshrined in both the California and US Constitution. The US Supreme Court has upheld this freedom in several majority decisions. The California Constitution Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4 states: “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed… The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

    The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947) stating, “No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.”

    Barring students from both public and private schools because their parents don’t agree with the use of some vaccines on religious grounds can only be interpreted as discrimination for entertaining certain religious beliefs.

    To accurately determine when the Establishment Clause has been violated, the U.S. Supreme Court established a modern set of guidelines in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). It was determined that South Carolina could not deny unemployment benefits to a Seventh Day Adventist who did not believe in working on Saturdays. The court developed the following four-step process:
    1. A religious belief or practice is involved.
    2. Such a belief or practice is burdened by the governmental action in question.
    3. A compelling state interest justifies such an infringement on the First Amendment rights.
    4. Even if such a compelling state interest is present, is there a less restrictive alternative that might allow the government to achieve its purposes without intruding upon religious liberty?

    If we apply these criteria to SB277, we will find that it violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The first step of the Sherbert v . Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) guidelines is satisfied should parents wish to file a PBE for their child on religious grounds. If a family is forced to homeschool its children, regardless of its religious beliefs, financial means, and ability, SB277 would impose multiple burdens on that family, satisfying step two. As noted previously, Senators Pan and Allen have not presented a compelling state interest that would justify infringement on First Amendment rights, failing step three. Lastly, even if there were a compelling state interest, there are certainly less restrictive alternatives that would allow the government to achieve its goal of high vaccine rates without intruding upon religious liberty, such as continuing to let AB2109 work (decreased PBE rates by 20% in one year), better data on actual vaccination opt-out rates by disease and by area, and an educate/encourage approach.

    Should this Legislature pass SB277, those voting for it to pass would be violating their very oath of office in light of the facts stated above. Therefore, we again, ask for your NO vote on SB277 to ensure the freedom of religion is not ripped away, unjustly trying to create a solution where there is not a problem.

    Lastly, Vaccines are unsafe, injure and are known to kill. Please view these sites that state and show injury and death has occurred by vaccines: http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index, http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/march-2015-settlements-in-vaccine-court-117-vaccine-injuries-and-deaths/, http://vaxtruth.org/2011/08/vaccine-ingredients/. Forcing anyone to get a vaccine is assault with a deadly weapon. We urge you to Oppose SB277 and protect our choice.

    For these and many more reasons, I oppose this legislation that removes personal belief vaccine exemptions and as your constituent ask you to also oppose it should you cast a vote.

  29. Where there is a risk, there should be a choice. The decision should be between parents and their doctor, not the government. What comes next? The fact that this bill was not killed during the education committee hearing is pure insanity to me. Pan rigged the votes – all his meddling is right there in plain sight along with all his little chats with lobbyist Jodi Hicks. This is the tip of the iceberg – what comes next? I’ll tell you what, adult forced vaccination. Then all hell will break loose. Why is all hell not breaking loose now? These are our precious children that need us to make these important decisions for them. Our family has MTHFR mutations. In ten years, when all these doctors wake up they will realize how serious it is. It doesn’t even get acknowledged right now. I had a severe reaction to Hep B vaccine. I’m not putting my children through that having MTHFR. Look at the statistics of Autistic children with MTHFR mutations. That is NO coincidence!! Oppose SB277. Keep our right to informed consent alive. The government has no business making medical decisions for our children and vaccines are considered a medical procedure. To force them in order to attend school is so completely wrong. I feel like we are going back in time, not progressing.

  30. Our Founding Fathers never intended for government to have the power to coerce its citizens into medical interventions. All medical interventions have both benefits and risks. When there is a RISK, there must be a CHOICE!
    SB277 and SB792 violate our civil, human, religious, educational, and Constitutional rights, and our right to informed consent, Opinion 8.08 of the American Medical Association as well as the Nuremberg Code of Ethics. Stop the insanity before it’s too late!!!

  31. Thor, so true! I think both of those posts are longer than the original column. But I agree with their sentiments.

    Well, Hypo, you are certainly welcome to do as you please (that’s the beauty of liberty!), but after reading the Richest Man in Babylon when I was a young adult I spent several austere years paying off student loans and credit cards and haven’t carried debt since. Obviously that doesn’t work for everyone, but to me it was worth it as everything I earn I keep now and I don’t have to worry about servicing debt if life throws me a curve ball.

    So, we may not be on the same page, and that’s all right, as mainly I’m for liberty to manage personal finances as each individual sees fit and I think you are too, but consider the environment of easy money we find ourselves in today: low to no reserve requirements for banks, $69 trillion in dollar-denominated debt on this earth, much of it consumer debt which is not productive, and a decent chunk of it from QE, and bailouts to reward banks for lowering their lending standards to the bottom of the barrel. You may be responsible and have a job you can’t lose, but how can we be sure everyone who’s borrowed will pay back their principal, or even interest? This is the kind of (federal) government fiscal irresponsibility I’m talking about.

    At the state level, we can’t live within our means either, and it only gets worse with unnecessary bills like SB-277–where’s the money going to come from to enforce this if they can’t even get schools to follow up on conditional entrants (those who have no objection to vaccines, but are not caught up) now?


    The irony in that article from January is that Senator Pan is quoted near the end as saying these conditional entrants are “worrying”, yet the very next month he authored a bill to target the much smaller percentage of people who actually have a conscientious objection and are responsible enough to get to the doctor and document it in accordance with his own prior bill, AB-2109.

  32. BC,

    “The Richest Man in Babylon” is one of the most important books ever written and I highly recommend that everyone on this blog read it. The book does stress living within your means, actually 90% of your means, but it also has many references to times when taking on some debt is prudent and even advisable. Of course, never needing to borrow is the ideal and if you are in a position to have bought your house without a mortgage and to always carry enough cash to never need a credit card, I commend you. I hope some day to reach that point in my life too.

  33. HQ, personal debt is quite different than national debt. When YOU take out debt, YOU are responsible for paying it off. As it should be. Lenders look to you (and your assets) to make good on such loans. Any responsible individual takes out loans with the idea of paying them off during their lifetimes.

    But when federal politicians take on debt (and deficit spend, and issue unfunded liabilities via edict), they mandate that ALL people pay on that debt forever — their children, grandchildren, and so on. We’ve long since passed the point where anyone seriously expects federal debt to EVER be paid off.

    Moreover, as an individual, you can’t issue/”print” dollars to pay off your debt. National governments can. And they do — often a massive DE FACTO tax on those with monetary assets or income. Either that, or they simply repudiate the debt. Too many governments have chosen that route over the years.

  34. Richard,

    Most people die with personal debt still on the books, but your point is well taken – Government finances are very different than personal, or even business, finances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.