Freedom in Governor Brown's Hands...YIKES!

  Governor Brown signed another chunk of our freedom away on September 30.

I suppose Brown thinks that parents of non-vaccinated children don't know how to read and so need to be forced by a law to go to a doctor to have him or her teach us about vaccinations.  

 

Never have I heard a doctor admit some children have been killed or maimed by vaccinations.  

 

We are to expect that doctors will happily sign a waiver for us when we get turned away by doctors who won't see kids who are not vaccinated.  

 

Warning: the next vaccination law will cut away at your freedoms even more.

Have You Asked Governor Brown To Veto AB2109 TODAY?

Dear California NVIC Advocacy Team Members,

Even if you’ve called or written the governor before to urge Governor Jerry Brown to Veto AB2109, we need EVERYONE calling, faxing, and emailing him today! There still has not been any action on the AB2109 by the governor and we only have until Sunday to get Governor Brown to Veto AB2109!  If everyone on this list makes a veto request today, maybe the Governor’s office will notice and do the right thing!

Governor Jerry Brown
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160
Webmail: http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Below is NVIC’s one page veto request to Governor Brown.  Feel free to use any points you like from it. If you receive any feedback, please let your California NVIC State Co-Directors, Dawn Winkler and Michelle Gutierrez, know at CADirector@NVICAdvocacy.org.  Thank you!

VETO AB2109 GOVERNOR BROWN

Plain and simply put, AB2109 will prohibit a child from attending school if their parent is unable to secure the additional burdensome requirement of a medical office visit and medical signature on their exemption form to mandatory vaccination. This can lead to truancy charges and damaging lapses in the child’s education.  It is very important to note that the vaccination status of the child will not change as a result of this bill becoming law, but the door to a free and public education for some children whose parents choose to delay or decline some vaccines will be closed forever.  

It is well documented that many physicians throw families out of their practice who don’t fully vaccinate (perform any internet search you like regarding doctors refusing to treat unvaccinated children to find numerous articles and studies).  Nothing in AB2109 compels a physician to accept an appointment with a partially vaccinated or unvaccinated child or sign the form if asked. Also, parents who cannot find a willing physician will be denied their right to exercise their religious beliefs in opposition to vaccination since Californians are reliant on the personal belief exemption to take an exemption to vaccine mandates for religious reasons. The state of California should not be putting medical personnel in charge as the gatekeepers of the free exercise of religion.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, vaccine refusals and disease importation are not to blame for pertussis outbreaks as bill supporters have tried to falsely imply.  (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/08/whooping-cough-outbreak-top-10-things-you-should-know.html) Most cases are in the vaccinated and are due to lower levels of vaccine effectiveness and more rapidly waning protection than previously understood.  Further restricting current vaccine exemptions will not change this fact, it will only promote distrust in and resentment of public health programs by well-educated parents and health care providers who already know this.

AB2109 also creates an additional expense for an office visit with a practitioner that the family may not use.  Many parents cannot afford the time off from work or money for a new doctor visit and signature especially if they have multiple children.

The following is a list of vaccines in use or in current development: AIDS , Asthma, Botulism, Brucellosis, Chlamydia, Cocaine Addiction, Cytomegalovirus, Diabetes, Diphtheria, E-Coli (Shiga toxin), Genital Herpes, Giardiasis, Gonorrhea, Haemophilus influenza, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Heroin Addiction, High Blood Pressure, Human Papillomavirus, Influenza, Legionellosis, Lyme Disease, Malaria, Measles, Meningoccocal, Mumps, Novel H1N1 Influenza, Obesity, Pertussis, Polio,  Rubella, Salmonellosis, Shigellosis, Streptococcal group A, Streptococcus pneumonia, Syphilis, Tetanus, Tuberculosis, Typhoid Fever, Varicella (chickenpox), West Nile Virus.  

It is unreasonable to require a family to have a medical appointment and medical provider signature for wanting to delay or decline any of these vaccines. As more vaccines are added to the already fully packed mandatory schedule, this debate will only intensify unless the right to exercise informed consent to vaccination without medical harassment is upheld and respected. 

VETO AB2109

Sincerely,

Dawn Richardson, Director of Advocacy
National Vaccine Information Center
http://NVIC.org and http://NVICAdvocacy.org
Dawn@NVICAdvocacy.org 

FINAL PUSH: Request CA Legislators Who Opposed AAB2109 During Session to ask Governor Brown for his VETO

Also Attend Veto Rally Friday from 12-2 pm in Sacramento, State Capitol West Steps

Dear California NVIC Advocacy Team Members,

AB2109, the bill that would restrict the personal belief exemption to mandated vaccines making it impossible for a child to attend school unless their parent obtains a medical visit and signature on the vaccine exemption form, was passed by the legislature on August 27^th, 2012.

Governor Brown holds the bill now, and if he does nothing with it, or signs it on or before September 30th, the bill becomes law.  However, if he Vetoes the bill, the vaccine exemption could be saved.

AB2109 received opposition from both political parties. Many legislators stepped up and offered oral arguments against the bill at various steps throughout the legislative process.  Some legislators are now contacting Governor Brown and urging his Veto on AB2109. 

We need for all of the legislators who took a stand against AB2109 to contact Governor Brown immediately to request he veto AB2109. 

If your Senator or Assemblyman ever voted “NO” on AB2109, we are counting on you to make a QUICK ONE MINUTE PHONE CALL to your legislator’s office to thank them for their opposition and ask them to contact Governor Brown to ask him to VETO AB2109!

This needs to be done right away! We need Governor Brown to Veto AB2109 on or before September 30^th otherwise AB2109 becomes law.

Here is what you can do to help:

1)    Look on this list of Senators and Assembly Members.  Did either of your legislators vote NO on AB2109 during the legislative process?

California State Senators who voted no on AB 2109: Anderson, Berryhill, Cannella, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Huff, La Malfa, Runner, Strickland, Walters, Wyland.

California Assembly Members who voted no on AB 2109: Achadjian, Beth Gaines, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly, Garrick, Gatto, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey, Huber, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor , Miller, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner.Don’t know who your legislators are? Legislative Lookup and Contact Information can be obtained by clicking on http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html and entering your zip code to lookup who your legsislators are or you can log into the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org, select your California State Team Page,  and click on your legislators names automatically displayed on the right side.

2)    If you have a Senator or Assembly Member on the lists above who voted “NO” on AB2109 at any time during the legislative process, call them or fax them and thank them for their NO Vote on AB2109 and ask them to PLEASE contact Governor Brown to ask him to VETO AB2109. Assembly Member Tim Donnelly has written an excellent open request to the Governor to Veto AB2109.  You can read it here: http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/59/?p=article&sid=427&id=253064

3)    Keep calling and faxing Governor Brown himself to VETO AB2109.http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160

4)    If you can make time to attend and support the AB2109 VETO Rally this Friday, September 28^th from 12 pm – 2pm on the west steps of the Capitol, please go!  Your NVIC California State Directors Dawn Winkler and Michelle Gutierrez will be there, along with comedian/actor Rob Schneider, Assembly member Tim Donnelly, and others! Here is a personal request from NVIC CA State Director Dawn Winkler: “If you can make it, bring signs!!! Be creative! They were great last time. We need every single person possible to attend, this is the final stand. Media will undoubtedly be there and this should be quite the event. Should the bill be signed before then, the event will be a protest. Should the bill be vetoed before then, the event will be a HUGE CELEBRATION! The Governor often waits until the very last couple of days when it comes to controversial bills, so there is a chance he will have done nothing with the bill by then. This is a chance to really make some noise. No matter what, anyone who can come should try to be there! Updates and details regarding the rally can be found on the Californians Against AB2109 Facebook page.”

5)    If you need to contact NVIC California State Directors Dawn Winkler or Michelle Gutierrez about the rally or if you want to share information about your call to your legislators, they can be reached at CADirector@NVICAdvocacy.org.     

Sincerely,

Dawn Richardson, Director of Advocacy
National Vaccine Information Center
http://NVIC.org and http://NVICAdvocacy.org
Dawn@NVICAdvocacy.org

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) works diligently to prepare and disseminate our legislative advocacy action alerts and supporting materials.  We request that organizations and members of the public forward our alerts in their original form to assure consistent and accurate messaging and effective action. Please acknowledge NVIC as originators of this work when forwarding to members of the public and like-minded organizations. To receive alerts immediately, register  at http://NVICAdvocacy.org, a website dedicated to this sole purpose and provided as a free public service by NVIC.

The Escape Mechanism

This is a link to a Max Igan interview.  If you are new to Max and his thoughts, you may find this overview interesting.  The introduction ends at 4:11 if you want to skip it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7jEJ2MwiHc

Governor Brown and Senator Yee Are At it Again

 The following is a letter called Advocacy News put out by CSOMA, the California State Oriental Medical Association, for acupuncturists.  It seems Leland Yee is constantly bringing senseless, useless, acupuncture-related legislation up every year.  This actually got signed into law!

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Legislative Update: Governor Signs SB 628 (Yee)

Last week, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 628 (Yee), a bill regulating doctoral titles used by California licensed acupuncturists. CSOMA has received a number of inquiries regarding this new law. This email addresses some of the major questions we have received.

In this update…

• What does SB 628 do?
• Why was SB 628 enacted?
• Did CSOMA take a position on SB 628?
• Does this law impact my ability to use the title ‘doctor’ if its use isn’t connected with my practice?
• What licenses entitle me to use the title of ‘doctor’?
• What degrees entitle me to use the title of ‘doctor’?
• Do doctoral degrees earned abroad entitle me to use the title ‘doctor’?
• What is the proper way to use post-nominal letters?

What does SB 628 do?

Very little. SB 628 introduces nothing new. It simply takes decades-old California Acupuncture Board (CAB) regulation (16 CCR 1399.456: Use of the Title “Doctor”) and places this language—word for word—into statute. When it goes into effect on January 1, 2013, the new law will change nothing except that it will take away the CAB’s power to make changes to regulations governing doctoral titling. Any future changes in this area will require approval by the California legislature rather than the CAB.

Both the existing regulation and the new law prohibit acupuncturists from using the title ‘doctor’ or the abbreviation ‘Dr.’ in connection with an acupuncture practice unless s/he holds a doctoral title by license (e.g., MD) or unless s/he possesses an earned doctorate from an ‘accredited, approved, or authorized educational institution’ in acupuncture, oriental medicine, a biological science, or a field related to the practice of acupuncture. Both go on to prohibit the use of the title ‘doctor’ without further indicating the license or degree that authorizes its use.

Why was SB 628 enacted?

The purpose of moving CAB regulation into statute is unclear. This change does nothing more than eliminate the California Acupuncture Board’s authority to regulate in this area.

The bill’s author (Senator Leland Yee) asserts that this legislation will help improve the quality of acupuncture in California. The few supporters of the bill have claimed that the bill would raise the status of acupuncture in California and encourage advanced studies in the field.

Given that existing regulation is identical to the language of this bill and given that existing regulation has been in effect for more than 20 years, CSOMA did not and does not see meaningful or substantial positive impacts from this new law. Likewise, we do not anticipate substantial negative impacts.

Did CSOMA take a position on SB 628?

CSOMA took a ‘neutral’ position with respect to SB 628. Given negligible change to the status quo introduced by SB 628, we elected to focus our advocacy resources on higher priorities, including the successful defeat of SB 1488 (Yee), a bill that would have established a ‘California Traditional Chinese Medicine Traumatology Council’ without establishing adequate training standards.

Does this law impact my ability to use the title ‘doctor’ if its use isn’t connected with my practice?

No. SB 628 only restricts how a California licensed acupuncturist may use the title of ‘doctor’ in connection with the practice of acupuncture. It does not not impact how doctoral titles are used by licensed acupuncturists when this use is not connected with acupuncture practice in California.

What licenses entitle me to use the title of ‘doctor’?

Both current regulation and SB 628 are silent with respect to which other licenses would authorize the use of a doctoral title. Acupuncturists licensed in other medical disciplines should check with the relevant California licensing board(s) for information regarding authorization to use doctoral titles under these licenses.

For those California licensed acupuncturists who hold a doctoral title by license issued in another state (e.g., Doctor of Oriental Medicine in New Mexico, Doctor of Acupuncture in Rhode Island, medical doctor in any other state), we urge extreme caution. While SB 628 does not explicitly state that licenses authorizing the use of the title ‘doctor’ must be issued by California, it is reasonable to conclude that this is implied by the law.

What degrees entitle me to use the title of ‘doctor’?

To authorize the use of the title ‘doctor,’ both current regulation and SB 628 state that degrees must be:

1. An ‘earned doctoral degree;’
2. From an ‘accredited, approved, or authorized educational institution;’
3. In acupuncture, oriental medicine, a biological science, or is otherwise related to the authorized practice of an acupuncturist.

To meet criteria #2 above, an educational institution must either be:

1. Accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education; or
2. Approved or authorized to operate by California’s Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE).

All DAOM post-graduate degree programs are accredited by Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (ACAOM), a United States Department of Education recognized accrediting agency. Therefore, all of these degrees qualify.

CSOMA believes that the second standard (approval by BPPE) is inadequate. It is our view that all education in the field should be held to the significantly more rigorous United States Department of Education standards. This may be an issue for our field to address in the future. However, given the longstanding nature of existing regulation, CSOMA did not raise objections to SB 628.

Do doctoral degrees earned abroad entitle me to use the title ‘doctor’?

Both current regulation and SB 628 restrict the use of the title ‘doctor’ to those who have an ‘earned doctoral degree’ from an ‘accredited, approved, or authorized educational institution.’ Neither the United States Department of Education nor the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) regulate international educational institutions. Therefore, California licensed acupuncturists who have earned doctoral degrees abroad may not use this as the basis for using the title ‘doctor’ or the abbreviation ‘Dr.’ in conjunction with the practice of acupuncture.

It would appear that individuals with internationally earned doctorates in the field may still list these doctoral credentials after their name (e.g., Jane Doe, LAc, PhD) as long as these credentials are not false, misleading, or deceptive.

What is the proper way to use post-nominal letters?

This isn’t directly related to SB 628, but we’ve occasionally received questions regarding the proper use of post-nominal letters (i.e., letters placed after the name of a person to indicate that the individual holds a position, educational degree, accreditation, office, or honor). So we’ll take the opportunity to provide some guidance on this front.

Here are some guidelines generally used in the United States:

1. Post-nominal letters are typically listed in the following order:
   • Academic Degrees—listed lowest to highest (e.g., MBA, DAOM);
   • Honorary degrees;
   • Professional licenses (e.g, LAc)—listed from highest to lowest importance (as you determine) or alphabetically;
   • Professional certifications;
   • Professional associations and affiliations.
2. List only the highest degree earned in a particular discipline (e.g., ‘Jane Doe, DAOM, LAc’; not ‘Jane Doe, MSTCM, DAOM, LAc’).
3. If a doctoral post-nominal is used (e.g., DAOM), don’t use ‘Dr.’ prior to your name; this is redundant. It’s ‘Jane Doe, DAOM, LAc,’ not ‘Dr. Jane Doe, DAOM, LAc.’
4. Generally, no more than three post-nominals are listed unless you have a compelling reason to list more.

Additionally, current regulation, SB 628, and California Attorney General Opinion No. 87–103 all clearly indicate that a California licensed acupuncturist may not use the title ‘doctor’ or the abbreviation ‘Dr.’ without also indicating the type of license or degree that authorizes this use. For example, ‘Dr. Jane Doe’ and ‘Dr. Jane Doe, LAc’ are not permissible as they do not also indicate the doctoral license or degree. ‘Dr. Jane Doe, DAOM, LAc’ or ‘Dr. Jane Doe, MD, LAc’ are permitted (assuming, of course, that you hold a DAOM degree or MD license respectively); however, as we noted above, the prefix of ‘Dr.’ is not typically used concurrently with doctoral post-nominal letters (e.g., DAOM or MD).

California Attorney General Opinion No. 87–103 makes clear that using the initials ‘OMD’ or the title ‘Oriental Medical Doctor’ without further information that removes the implication that the individual is a physician or surgeon. For example, ‘Jane Doe, OMD’ is not permissible; ‘Jane Doe, OMD, LAc’ is permissible assuming that the OMD degree was granted by an accredited or approved institution as explained above.

Finally, all of the restrictions on the use of doctoral titles apply equally to written and spoken communications in connection with the practice of acupuncture. The law does not make a distintion between the two.

Comments & Feedback

As always, we welcome and appreciate feedback. You may send comments to info@csomaonline.org or contact CSOMA toll-free at 800.477

The Public Should Not Have to Demand the Labeling of GMO's

 I do not know about you, but I actually put my cell phone to use while shopping.  Perhaps you have seen me.  I am the one in the aisle holding a bottle or carton of something making a call to the company with a pen in my hand.  I ask if this particular product has been irradiated.  If the answer is yes, I hang up, place the item back on the shelf, and proceed to the next brand.  If the answer is no, I ask my next question.  "Is it organic?"  Same process, my next question being, "Does it have any GMO's in it?"  If the answer is no to being irradiated and to having no GMO's and is organic, I am practically doing cartwheels at this rare phenomenon.  It is sad but true, though, that the public should have to demand the labeling of GMO's and other such things on food labels. 

It seems to me, a non-psychopathic/non-legislator, that it is common sense to inform the public about the state of food products purchased at the local store.  Since it is not common sense, my advise to you is never sit back and assume a company would place a word like "GMO's" or "Irradiated"on the label.  Further, if a considerable amount of time has past since the last time you purchased that brand, ask the three questions again.  It would be so helpful to me if companies could just label their products as being what they are.  Prop 37 does promise to help us a little by requesting, at least, the labeling of GMO's.

According to Gretchen DuBeau, the Executive and Legal Director of Alliance of Natural Health USA,
"Over 90% of American voters support the labeling of GMOs. Nearly 1,000,000 Californians put the 'California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act'—aka Prop 37, which would require the labeling of all foods containing genetically modified organisms—on the ballot this Election Day."  It is absolutely ridiculous that citizens have to struggle to get something like GMO labeling of food accomplished.  We have to fight for our right to know what's going on with the food on the shelves at the store.  It is ludicrous!  Since your not too clear-thinking legislators need you to spell it out to them, please vote for Prop 37 so we can read "GMO's" clearly for ourselves on food products in stores.