Latest Amendments made to SB276 were published 7/1/19. 

They “supposedly” address of the removal of the doctor patient relationship and adequately expand the medical exemption criteria, but they do neither.  However, yet the Governor is now on board:

SB 276 Bill and Fiscal Summary
SB 276 as currently written would put school vaccine medical exemptions under the scrutiny of a state bureaucrat, penalizing children and their doctors rather than creating a bill that would specifically target unscrupulous doctors. We estimate the cost of SB 276 to be in excess of $50 million in the first year and in excess of approximately $35 million in each subsequent year, with an additional approximately $650 million potential loss in school ADA and/or approximately $5 billion potential increased healthcare costs. All to go after an extremely small and unquantified number of “unscrupulous” doctors and to mitigate the 11 cases of measles in California children this year. There has to be a better, more cost effective way. SB 276 is not that.

Below are various documents that include A Voice for Choice Advocacy’s talking points, fiscal analysis and requested amendments for the current bill wording.  Please feel free to share these with your legislators and other interested parties.

SB 276 will be voted on in the Appropriations Committee on Wednesday July 10 at 9am.  It will be put on the Suspense file (with all other bills costing over $150,000), where it will sit until August 31 before moving to the Assembly floor.

AVFCA Fiscal Analysis submitted to the Committee and the Finance Department can be found here (also attached) and for you to share with your legislators:

SB 276 with the amendments published 7/1/19 can be read here:

AVFCA Issues with the bill and requested amendments can be found here:
Share these with your legislators.  There are a lot of issues, because this bill is still a mess.  Our suggestion, if you meet with a legislator or their staff and have limited time, is to focus on the top 3-4 issues that resonate with your situation.

For those who want to go deeper, AVFCA has gone through the bill line by line and made a list of unanswered questions, as well as issues with the bill, outlined here:

Our requested amendments have also been transcribed onto the current bill wording:

For now, we have to continue to SHOW UP! If you have a meeting with a legislator’s office this week, please take the attached documents and share them. Show them that this bill is chaotic and does not address the removal of the doctor patient relationship and does not include family history outright, and that this leaves more questions unanswered than answered. Share your story on how this will affect you and your children. Will you be left having to choose between adhering to your doctor’s advice not to vaccinate and being forced to vaccinate for your kids to go to school?

Click here for AVFCA SB276 Issues and Requested Amendments
Click here for
AVFCA SB276 Legislative Flyer with all the talking points
Click here for AVFCA Fiscal Analysis of SB 276

TAKE ACTION this week – please do the following four things (Updated 7/6/19):

  1. Get reinvigorated by watching this amazing HighWire clip. We are a part of the right side of history.  It’s 12 minutes of powerful…
  2. Call your Assembly member’s district office (AGAIN) ( and ask when their next public event is – coffee morning, town hall, etc. Plan to go to that.  Then also request a meeting with them if you have not already.  They will be on vacation/in district from  July 12- August 11.  Take a copy of the requested AVFCA Amendments and Fiscal Analysis (attached) to their district office and request a meeting.  If you do meet with someone, please email us and let us know how it goes and the feedback.
  3. Sign and share the online petition I cannot say how important this effort is to this fight. WE NEED SIGNATURES.  This is a KEY way for us to show legislators that they cannot take their elections for granted.  Please, please get collecting.  We will collect through July.
    (Includes a summary of both bills).
    Print out paper copy petitions and collect signatures at community events, farmer’s markets, churches, outside grocery stores, etc.  Leave them at chiropractor and alternative medicine offices.  Your personal goal – 100+ signatures
    All Instructions for Petitions, Bill summary and first petition signature page:
    Additional petition signature pages:
  4. Donate to A Voice for Choice Advocacy ( – Thank you to all those who have generously donated!! Our 3 seasoned lobbyists and working hard for us and are making a real difference in their conversations with assembly members, and allowed some of our questions and concerns to be raised in the committee hearing, making Senator Pan defend his bill.  We need donations to cover them for the next month but they will likely be needed beyond that, so if you have not donated, or want to donate again, please do so.  We have also helped pay for 5 busses from SoCal for the hearings, and are launching a big media blitz in the next few weeks.  Every penny counts so ask your friends and family to donate.  Thank you!

The next step is Assembly Appropriations Committee, Assembly floor, Senate floor concurrence and the Governor.


Richard Pan Breaks Another Promise

Sacramento – State Senator Richard Pan, the author of SB 277, a law that requires kindergartners to get twenty-seven different doses of medication and fifteen different shots or forego a public education, has introduced SB 276, a bill that would require government permission for a doctor to opine that certain vaccines could harm a patient. This is an unprecedented and dangerous intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship, likely violates doctor’s free-speech rights, and contradicts Pan’s own public promises from just a few years ago. (

Pan has claimed there is a problem with “medical exemptions” – i.e., official opinions by a doctor that if a child is vaccinated, that child could suffer harm. Medical exemptions are extremely rare, and doctors grant them only if a child or a family member suffers from things like a debilitating disease (such as leukemia), or if a child or a family member had a well-documented negative reaction to a vaccine or one of its ingredients. Just 0.7% of students obtain such an exemption, up from 0.2% before the passage of SB 277, a change that is not statistically significant. The total number of children exempt from the state’s vaccine requirements (i.e., including those 1.1% exempt due to disabilities) has actually dropped since the passage of SB 277, going from 2.6% to 1.9%, indicating that Pan’s plan is a solution in search of a problem.

Pan’s legislation would require doctors to get permission from a government department — the state Department of Public Health, before issuing an opinion for a patient on this issue. Such interference in the doctor-patient relationship is unprecedented, and the only analogous laws have been in state’s requiring state approval of abortions — something that has been universally deemed improper. Pan’s planned attempt to crack down on doctors would almost certainly get in the way of a doctor making an evaluation based on empirical, scientific evidence. “Imagine being the parents of a child who the federal government concluded was injured because of a condition that made them susceptible to vaccines, and then your family doctor tells you she is too terrified to exempt your younger child from those same vaccines, because the thought police might take her license,” said Christina Hildebrand, President and Founder of A Voice for Choice Advocacy, a non-profit that advocates for medical freedom. “I can’t imagine what good would come from the government regulating a doctor’s free will to diagnose as he sees fit – it starts to resemble regulation of free speech,” Hildebrand concluded.

Pan, a politician representing the Sacramento region, is a regular beneficiary of campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, averaging just shy of $100,000 from it every legislative session. He is the top recipient of such funds in the state legislature, and the pharmaceutical industry, in turn, is his largest contributor.

“Any legislation or action on behalf of drugmakers that interferes with a doctor’s individual judgment will be hotly contested,” said Hildebrand. “We cannot let government determine what is in the best interests of any individual, overriding the doctor-patient relationship. Every doctor and patient in the state should be alarmed if such action is brought forward. If this can be done with vaccinations, what medical treatment will be next? Patients need to be able to trust their doctors and not worry that they are being pressured or worried that their honest, scientifically based medical judgement will be overruled by a legislatively appointed official who has never met them.”