SB276 will remove 99.9% of all medical exemptions in CA, if passed. It will be heard on 4/24 at 1:30 in the Senate Health Committee.
Take Action (Updated 4/16) – Between now and 4/24 – please do the following six things:
- Sign the petition asking CA legislators to oppose SB276 and AB262 – https://avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org/sb276-ab262-petition/ (Includes a summary of both bills). Share this with EVERYONE you know. There is not a Californian, regardless of their stance on vaccines, that should not want to oppose these two bills that remove the doctor patient relationship and give the
- If you have not done so already, call your Senator and Assembly member’s offices (http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/) and ask them to not co-author the bill and also request a meeting with them – insist on getting a meeting with the legislator, not the staff, in the next month. Also find out their next public events (coffee mornings and town halls) and plan to attend those. They are in their district this week, so should be close by or at events over Easter weekend. Use the talking points in the AVFCA Flyer below to talk to Democrats.
- Make travel plans to Sacramento Wednesday April 24th. Bring your vaccine injured children and get all your friends to come. The hearing will be on Wednesday April 24th at 1:30 for those who want to show their opposition. The visual impact that we will have with lines wrapping all around the Capitol carries weight and sends the message that we aren’t going away. AVFCA as requested and been granted a Special Order of Business for this bill so it will be heard first. We will ensure that families with special needs children or individuals with special needs will give public comment first, or at the point that they are ready to. We will have special needs advocates to assist in this process. If you want to take a bus from SoCal sign up here: https://parentinstincts.eventsmart.com/events/stop-sb276-socal-to-sacramento/
- Pre-order Oppose SB276 T-shirts and Buttons. Can be picked up in Sacramento on 4/24, or mailed thereafter. Order now to guarantee yours https://avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org/shop/
- Spread the word: talk to friends, family, doctors, nurses, leaders of organizations, people that value the doctor-patient relationship, and ask them to upload a letter of opposition. Let them know what Pan is up to with this bill. This is a health issue. Not a vaccine issue.
- Donate to A Voice for Choice Advocacy (https://avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org/donate/) – Thank you to those of you who have generously donated. I will continue to go to Sacramento unpaid, but we have hired 2 seasoned lobbyists and are fundraising for the hearing buses which in total will cost over $60,000. Every penny counts so ask your friends and family to donate.
Click here for AVFCA SB276 Legislative Flyer with all the talking points
SB276 would require:
- All medical exemptions be approved by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) – removing the critical doctor-patient relationship.
- All medical exemption requests be based on CDC contraindications only (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/contraindications.html#t-01) – requiring a child to have a severe anaphylactic reaction to each specific vaccine before they could be exempt from that specific vaccine. No sibling or family history or genetic predisposition would be allowed.
- All medical exemption requests be submitted via a standardized form created by the CDPH – creating extra paperwork
- All approved medical exemptions be included in a database accessible to the CDPH – circumventing FERPA and creating possible HIPAA privacy issues.
- Any medical exemption written PRIOR to SB276 be approved by the CDPH and included in the database, by July 1, 2020 – resulting in additional work for physicians to review and enter and CDPH to review.
- Full text of the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276
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. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K1B4frigFM&feature=youtu.be)
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.”