Thursday, April 23, 2015

SB 277 Revised

Amended  IN  Senate  April 22, 2015
Amended  IN  Senate  April 09, 2015


CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2015–2016 REGULAR SESSION


Senate Bill No. 277



Introduced by Senators Pan and Allen
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Gonzalez)
(Coauthors: Senators Beall, Block, De León, Hall, Hertzberg, Hill, Jackson, Leno, McGuire, Mitchell, Stone, Wieckowski, and Wolk)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Baker, Chiu, Cooper, Low, McCarty, Nazarian, Rendon, Mark Stone, and Wood)

February 19, 2015



An act to add Section 48980.5 to the Education Code, and to amend Sections 120325, 120335, and 120370 of, and to repeal Section 120365 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to public health.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST



SB 277, as amended, Pan. Public health: vaccinations.

(1) Existing law prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil of any public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless prior to his or her admission to that institution he or she has been fully immunized against various diseases, including measles, mumps, and pertussis, subject to any specific age criteria. Existing law authorizes an exemption from those provisions for medical reasons or because of personal beliefs, if specified forms are submitted to the governing authority. Existing law requires the governing authority of a school or other institution to require documentary proof of each entrant’s immunization status. Existing law authorizes the governing authority of a school or other institution to temporarily exclude a child from the school or institution if the authority has good cause to believe that the child has been exposed to one of those diseases, as specified.

This bill would eliminate the exemption from immunization based upon personal beliefs. This bill would except pupils in a home-based private school and students enrolled in an independent study pursuant to specified law from the prohibition described above of all of the school’s pupils are residents of the household or are members of a single family. above. The bill would narrow the authorization for temporary exclusion to make it applicable only to a child whose documentary proof of immunization status does not show proof of immunization against one of the diseases described above. The bill would make conforming changes to related provisions.
(2) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, at the beginning of the first semester or quarter of the regular school term, to make certain notifications to parents or guardians of minor pupils including, among others, specified rights and responsibilities of a parent or guardian and specified school district policies and procedures.
This bill would require the governing board of a school district to also include in the notifications provided to parents or guardians of minor pupils at the beginning of the regular school term the immunization rates for the school in which a pupil is enrolled for each required immunization. By requiring school districts to notify parents or guardians of school immunization rates, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.


Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: YES  



The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

 Section 48980.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:
48980.5.
 The notification required pursuant to Section 48980 shall also include the immunization rates for the school in which a pupil is enrolled for each of the immunizations required pursuant to Section 120335 of the Health and Safety Code.

SEC. 2.

 Section 120325 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
120325.
 In enacting this chapter, but excluding Section 120380, and in enacting Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415, it is the intent of the Legislature to provide:
(a) A means for the eventual achievement of total immunization of appropriate age groups against the following childhood diseases:
(1) Diphtheria.
(2) Hepatitis B.
(3) Haemophilus influenzae type b.
(4) Measles.
(5) Mumps.
(6) Pertussis (whooping cough).
(7) Poliomyelitis.
(8) Rubella.
(9) Tetanus.
(10) Varicella (chickenpox).
(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
(b) That the persons required to be immunized be allowed to obtain immunizations from whatever medical source they so desire, subject only to the condition that the immunization be performed in accordance with the regulations of the department and that a record of the immunization is made in accordance with the regulations.
(c) Exemptions from immunization for medical reasons.
(d) For the keeping of adequate records of immunization so that health departments, schools, and other institutions, parents or guardians, and the persons immunized will be able to ascertain that a child is fully or only partially immunized, and so that appropriate public agencies will be able to ascertain the immunization needs of groups of children in schools or other institutions.
(e) Incentives to public health authorities to design innovative and creative programs that will promote and achieve full and timely immunization of children.

SEC. 3.

 Section 120335 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
120335.
 (a) As used in this chapter, “governing authority” means the governing board of each school district or the authority of each other private or public institution responsible for the operation and control of the institution or the principal or administrator of each school or institution.
(b) The governing authority shall not unconditionally admit any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless, prior to his or her first admission to that institution, he or she has been fully immunized. This subdivision does not apply to a pupil in a home-based private school if all of the pupils are residents of the household or are members of a single family. or a pupil who is enrolled in an independent study pursuant to Article 5.5 (commencing with Section 51745) of Chapter 5 of Part 28 of the Education Code. The following are the diseases for which immunizations shall be documented:
(1) Diphtheria.
(2) Haemophilus influenzae type b.
(3) Measles.
(4) Mumps.
(5) Pertussis (whooping cough).
(6) Poliomyelitis.
(7) Rubella.
(8) Tetanus.
(9) Hepatitis B.
(10) Varicella (chickenpox).
(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), full immunization against hepatitis B shall not be a condition by which the governing authority shall admit or advance any pupil to the 7th grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school.
(d) The governing authority shall not unconditionally admit or advance any pupil to the 7th grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school unless the pupil has been fully immunized against pertussis, including all pertussis boosters appropriate for the pupil’s age.
(e) The department may specify the immunizing agents that may be utilized and the manner in which immunizations are administered.

(f)This section shall become operative on July 1, 2012.

SEC. 4.

 Section 120365 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed.

SEC. 5.

 Section 120370 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
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.
(b) When there is good cause to believe that a child whose documentary proof of immunization status does not show proof of immunization against a communicable disease listed in subdivision (b) of Section 120335 has been exposed to one of those diseases, that child may be temporarily excluded from the school or institution until the local health officer is satisfied that the child is no longer at risk of developing or transmitting the disease.

SEC. 6.

 If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division"
 

My question is...how come there's a part that talks about this document becoming operative on July 1, 2012 when Pan presented it on February 19, 2015?  Did he have the document waiting for the right time?    Did he know the public would have to be frightened into allowing us to be governed into giving up our rights to choose our medical procedures for ourselves?  Were the right circumstances made to happen?

 

Letter to Each Senator to vote in April


Dear Ms. Jackson,

I am writing to ask you to vote no on SB 277.  If you are considering voting yes, I invite you to listen to me.

SB 277:

Removes California’s citizen’s right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) It is inappropriate to establish legislation that forces us to educate our children and then turns around and makes it conditional.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Act, students are guaranteed a Free and Appropriate Public Education to carry out their Individual Education Plan (IEP) until the age of 22

Violates medical ethics, (as written in Opinion 8.08 of the American Medical Association).  How is it ethical for the leaders of California to force us to have medical procedures?  Whether you have studied medicine or not, I did not hire you to make my medical decisions for me.

Segregation issue: SB277 will segregate an entire class of children which is unconstitutional, especially since there are protections in place for students with HIV and HepB. To separate is inherently not equal (Brown v. Board of Education).  The camps made for Jews and non-Nazis comes to mind.  If you vote yes on SB 277, you are supporting dividing the population.

Violates the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Removes freedom of religion, (as declared by the California Constitution Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4).  I would appreciate believing I am free to choose whether I place crap in my temple (body), or not.  It is not for SB 277 to decide, thank-you very much!

I live in California; therefore, your vote matters to me.  Please support our freedom to choose our own medical procedures. 

Thank-you.

Bright Day Thoughts,

Debbie Allsup

SB 277 Threatens to Revoke Rights to Make Medical Choices

The following is from http://www.sb277.org/

The Education hearing
possibly the LARGEST turn out of opposition in Legislative History over 800 voiced public opposition
April 15, 2015 (view recorded meeting)
Due to an overwhelming amount of unanswered questions by the Senate and lack of answers by the bill's authors vote was postponed until
Wednesday, April 22, at 9 AM

The Bill passed the committee with 2 amendments and many Senator's concerns unaddressed. Vote of 7 yes and 2 no.
Noes were 
Sharon Runner R-Lancaster
& Connie Leyva, D-Chino


Mark your calendar for next week's Judiciary Hearing at 1:30pm Tues
April 28th.

★ ACTION PLAN ★
 We need to point out the issues with this bill as amended

1. Please start formulating your letters and send them off via fax or email to the Senate Judiciary Committee members. Please ONLY CALL if you are a CONSTITUENT of that senator. All contact information is below.

Some points to hit on in your letters:

★ Segregation issue: SB277 will segregate an entire class of children which is unconstitutional, especially since there are protections in place for students with HIV and HepB. Separate is inherently not equal (Brown v. Board of Education).
★ Removes our right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
★ Violates medical ethics, (as written in Opinion 8.08 of the American Medical Association).
★ Removes freedom of religion, (as declared by the California Constitution Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4).
★ Under the Individuals with Disabilities Act, students are guaranteed a Free and Appropriate Public Education to carry out their Individual Education Plan (IEP) until the age of 22
★ Violates the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


EMAIL - SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
(copy the list and paste to BCC field of your email for a quick and easy batch email)

Senator.Jackson@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.Moorlach@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.Anderson@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.Hertzberg@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.Leno@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.Monning@senate.ca.gov,
Senator.Wieckowski@senate.ca.gov


FAX – Please only send your fax one time.
Senator Jackson – (916) 651-4919
Senator Moorlach – (916) 651-4937
Senator Anderson – (916) 651-4938
Senator Hertzberg – (916) 651-4918
Senator Leno – (916) 651-4911
Senator Monning – (916) 651-4917
Senator Wieckowski – (916) 651-4910


PHONE (only if you are their constituent)
Senator Jackson – (916) 651-4019
Senator Moorlach – (916) 651-4037
Senator Anderson – (916) 651-4038
Senator Hertzberg – (916) 651-4018
Senator Leno – (916) 651-4011
Senator Monning – (916) 651-4017
Senator Wieckowski – (916) 651-4010


2. MEETING WITH SENATORS:
Coordinate with your Senator's office to meet and dicuss your concerns. 


3.
Keep community outreach in the forefront of your mind. Canvassing at the weekend farmer's markets, peaceful protests, hosting an informational gathering with colleagues or in your mommy group, reaching out to your school's administrators...etc. Community outreach falls on each of us. At the very least, share this website with others
 SB277.ORG








 


 

The Senate Educational Committe's Votes

 BIT OF TRIVA
April 15 Education committee hearing public comments:
6 minutes SUPPORT: 47 adults with 18 groups represented

2.5 hours OPPOSITION: 623 adults, 134 children and 31 groups represented. 






Here is how the Senate Education Committee voted on Senate Bill 277:

Richard Pan, D-Sacramento Y

Carol Liu, D-La Cañada Flintridge Y

Bill Monning, D-Carmel Y

Andy Vidak, R-Hanford Y

Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia Y

Connie Leyva, D-Chino N

Marty Block, D-San Diego Y

Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster N

Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley Y


Thank-you to Connie Leyva and Sharon Runner for voting no to mandatory medical procedures.  If SB277 is signed into law, how is the Californian Government any better than Nazis forcing medical procedures on Jews and non-Nazis?  These yes voters need to step down.  They are not representing the public who does not wish to be enslaved.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article19227906.html#storylink=cpy

Anti-Vaxxers to be Punished

Debbie Allsup in pink.  Stephen Lutz in blue.

Australia To Cut Welfare Payments

For Anti-Vaxxers

April 13, 2015 | by Stephen Luntz
 
 
The Australian government will tighten the rules requiring children to be vaccinated in order for parents to receive welfare payments and childcare subsidies.
Current Australia law states that children must be vaccinated if their parents are to get the Family Tax Benefit A and rebates for childcare costs. However, exemptions are allowed under three circumstances: medical grounds that make a child at increased risk of unusual reaction, religious opposition or other “personal objections.”
The new rules would remove the last option, while still allowing exceptions on religious and medical grounds. The proposal has the support of the Labor opposition, guaranteeing it passage through both houses of parliament.
As in other developed countries, Australia has experienced outbreaks of diseases such as measles and whooping cough that were once controlled or eliminated entirely as a result of increasing numbers of parents choosing not to vaccinate their children. 

(In America, at least, increases in whooping cough were not because of unvaccinated children.  I say this because a huge number of kids who had whooping cough had been vaccinated.  Rather than blaming unvaccinated kids, why not test the crap that rains down on us from chem trails!  Why not ask yourself, "Who gains when legislation is put in place to take away people's rights?")


"The choice made by families not to immunize their children is not supported by public policy or medical research,...
(Not true.  The research has been done and the results are out there.  For example:
"Dr Viera Scheibner is Principal Research Scientist (Retired) with a doctorate in Natural Sciences from Comenius University in Bratislava. After an eminent scientific career in micropalaeontology during which she published 3 books and some 90 scientific papers in refereed scientific journals in Australia and overseas, she studied babies’ breathing patterns with the Cotwatch breathing monitor developed by her late husband Leif Karlsson in the mid 1980s. Babies had alarms after vaccination, indicating stress. This introduced her to the subject of vaccination. She then started systematically studying orthodox medical papers dealing with vaccination issues. To this day she has collected and studied more than 100000 pages of medical papers.

Despite such extensive research of orthodox medical papers published on vaccines over the past 100 years, she established that there is no scientific evidence that these injections of highly noxious substances prevent diseases, quite to the contrary, that they increase susceptibility to the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to prevent and also to a host of related and unrelated viral and bacterial infections. Vaccines are involved in a great number of modern ills of childhood such as immunoreactive diseases (asthma, allergies), autoimmune diseases (diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosis), cancers, leukaemia, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, behavioural and learning problems, to mention just the most important conditions.

Her research into vaccination has culminated so far in two books and a number of shorter and longer individual papers published in a variety of scientific and medical publications. She has also conducted frequent international lecture tours to present the results of her research to parents, health and medical professionals and anyone else who is interested. She has also provided a great number of expert witness reports for court cases relating to deaths and injuries caused by vaccines, such as so-called “shaken baby” syndrome."  See what I mean?  The problem is that Abbott wasn't handed a paper with these words on it.  Like the general public, he only knows what he's told.)
...nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of childcare payments,” Prime Minister Tony Abbott and
Social Services Minister Scott Morrison said in a joint statement. 
(Why?  What action should not be supported by taxpayers, the right to choose not to put crap in your child's bloodstream?  Abbott is showing his true colors here.  He doesn't like supporting freedom of thought.  He is speaking for Australians.  Maybe they like supporting freedom of thought.)
While the proposal has been welcomed by the Australian Medical Association and parental lobby groups, it has attracted criticism even from some vaccination supporters.

(Because the issue isn't about whether to vaccinate or not.  The issue is freedom of choice.  The more insane legislation the Australian public allows the government to sign into law, the easier it will be for other countries to do the same and the more
legislation the Australian government can implement on them, et cetera.) 
It has been noted that users of the conscientious objection clause
tend to be wealthy, and therefore less likely to be swayed
 by the loss of a means-tested welfare benefit. 
(Swayed means manipulated in this article.  It is unfair and therefore against the Australian citizen's rights to be forced to do something that they know is wrong.  Rather than wealthy, I'd say educated.  If the educated happen to have more money, fine, but that is not always the case.  At any rate, people who have spent years investigating this subject and therefore are educated on this subject, will absolutely NEVER allow this crap to be injected into their wee ones system.  How insane is it to force a family to hurt their children or no food will be on the table tonight.  When the wealthy won't budge, what kind of legislation will they come up with next?  A tax on all private helicopter rides?  A tax on maid service?  When will they stop, ever?)


The current Australian government's
record of hostility to sciencedemonstrated across many fields, has created suspicion about their motivation, particularly since the announcement coincides with moves to restrict welfare for other reasons. 

(Particularly.  The public are screwed no matter what you believe about vaccines.  Is it time to ask them to step down, yet?)

The conscientious objector clause has been used by less than 2% of parents in the last year. Another 6% of children are not vaccinated for other reasons—often from oversight rather than through deliberate parental decision. The proportion of children in the latter category has dropped significantly since 1998

(So ask yourselves, "Why is such a small percentage of the population such a threat to them, the rulers of the world?")

However, those electing not to vaccinate their children tend to be concentrated in specific areas, allowing infectious disease outbreaks to take hold. Advocates of the new policy hope it will raise vaccination rates in these areas to the point where herd immunity will be sufficient to prevent further outbreaks. 

(Two points: Firstly, as in California in 2010, it was many vaccinated kids who became ill with Whooping Cough.  Secondly, germ theory is just that...a theory.  True immunity occurs when your body doesn't allow various bugs to take over.  History lesson:  Although Louis Pasteur is credited with Germ Theory, the real first person was Geronimo Fracastrio.  In 1553, he published "De Contagionibus et Contagiosis Morbis, et eorum Curatine" in which he gave details about the cause of contagious diseases.  I can bet you have never heard of him.  Well, he did research on the very things that Pasteur received credit for.  Why?  Was the time right in the 1800's, so now they can let the public know about it?  Doesn't that make you wonder what answers they have right now, but they have decided it's too premature for you to know yet?  I'm getting side tracked.  Back to Germ Theory.  In the 1800's, Pasteur and Antoine Bechamp were contemporaries, but Bechamp discovered a microscopic thing, a microzyma, that would determine if your body would have infections, or be in a balanced state.  See, basically, Bechamp proved that things like stress could activate these microzymas and then the body would be sick.  It's not something from the outside at all.  I mean, to start with.  If you're living with flow and balance and listening to your body, you could be around tons of sick people and be ok.  There's a lot more to his theory and reasons why sickness would occur, but I just wanted to introduce you to the idea that what your learning is controlled by the powers that be.  So, could it be true that the pharmaceutical industry who loved Pasteur's modle, and for all we know they hired him and handed Fracastrio's work, wanting him to be big in this field so as they could say, "See.  You need our drugs and vaccines."  Could it be equally as true that today "Research" runs the same way?  We need the public to buy vaccines.  Do what you can to make that happen.  Yo!  Public.  It's time to wise up and get your hands on as many books as you can.  Read.  Learn.  Investigate.  Then ask any politicians in bed with Big Pharma to step down.  Lecture over.)




 
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/australia-make-welfare-payments-dependent-vaccination