SB276 will remove 99.9% of all medical exemptions in CA, if passed.
The amendments made to SB276 by Senator Pan in the Senate Appropriations Committee do not do what was stated. They do NOT grandfather in current vaccine medical exemptions. They also allow direct access to patient medical records by the California Medical Board, superseding current privacy laws.
Please contact your Democrat Senators and let them know what the bill says – many of them have not read the bill and only know what Senator Pan has told them. We have emailed this flyer to all Senate Democrat offices. Please feel free to use it for talking points.
Take Action (Updated 5/20) – This week, please do the following five things:
- Call your Senator’s offices in Sacramento and the district (http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/) and say the following:
If they are Democrat:
Hello, my name is [INSERT YOUR NAME]. I am a constituent of Senator [INSERT SENATOR’S LAST NAME]. I live in [INSERT CITY WHERE YOU LIVE], California. SB 276 is an issue that is important to me. I believe the doctor/patient relationship must be protected for medical vaccinations. A state bureaucrat should NOT be granting medical exemptions. [INSERT ONE STATEMENT FROM THIS FLYER]. Please ask the Senator to vote NO on SB 276.
If they are Republican:
Hello, my name is [INSERT YOUR NAME]. I am a constituent of Senator [INSERT SENATOR’S LAST NAME]. I live in [INSERT CITY WHERE YOU LIVE], California. SB 276 is an issue that is important to me. I believe the doctor/patient relationship must be protected for medical vaccinations. A state bureaucrat should NOT be granting medical exemptions. Please thank the Senator for opposing SB 276.
2. Ask 25-30 friends, family, neighbors, etc. to call their Senator by forwarding this email or sharing the AVFCA website, FB and Twitter posts. This is a health issue. Not a vaccine issue.
AVFCA Website: avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org/sb-276
3. Call your Assembly member’s offices (http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/), if you have not done so already and request a meeting with them – insist on getting a meeting with the legislator, not the staff, in June. Also find out their next public events (coffee mornings and town halls) and plan to attend those. If you do meet with someone, please email us and let us know how it goes and the feedback.
4. 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 state the authority to refuse all vaccine medical exemptions that are not for contraindications.
5. 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
Click here for AVFCA Fiscal Analysis of SB 276
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
The next step is the Senate floor for a vote by all senators, including yours. Then if it passes there, it goes to Assembly Rules, Assembly Committees, Assembly floor 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. (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.”