California Strips Parents & Children of their Basic Human Rights to Informed Consent & Medical Choice

  • Forcing those parents who refuse one or more vaccines into home schooling
  • The new, persecuted minority?
  • Turning Established Law, and Logic, on its Head
  • An Explicit Attack on Informed Consent
  • Refusal to Provide Liability for Vaccine-related Harm
  • Cheerleaders for Mandatory Vaccination: Be Careful What You Wish For!
  • Mandatory Vaccination, A Frightening Specter


Dollar sickness
Dollar sickness

[SVC] Even as minority rights expand in many other arenas — as exemplified by the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage — the California Legislature has targeted the very small and distinct minority of parents who seek to fully exercise, on behalf of their children, genuine “informed consent” and conscientious decision-making over their children’s medical risk-taking with regards to vaccination.

California SB 277, a bill to eliminate all non-medical vaccine exemptions for religious and conscientious beliefs from the mandatory vaccination law governing school attendance, has passed the California Assembly and will become law upon Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature. (Contact Gov. Brown urging him not to sign the legislation.)

It is beyond dispute that many of the vaccines are failing, and that the recently-vaccinated can actually spread disease, but this has not stopped the mainstream media from ginning up a national hysteria and wrongly demonizing the “anti-vaxxers.”

Vaccines can cause injury and death. For this reason, as with any medical risk-taking, immunization is a serious matter deserving careful study and genuine informed consent.

Yet California is poised to strip from its citizens this basic human right.


SB 277 is an extremely controversial law, drafted by legislators rife with conflicts of interest (see this and this), and criticized by parents, doctors, and lawyers — including many who self-describe as being “pro-vaccination” — as being anti-science, unconstitutional, discriminatory, and counterproductive from a legitimate public health point of view.

For example, critics note that the legislation appears to prohibit public school attendance even by a child who has received 14 of 15 mandated vaccinations.

Apparently, if the parent of an otherwise-“vaccinated” child simply fails or refuses on behalf of his child to obtain that “last,” State-mandated vaccination (whatever the expanding vaccination schedule dictates in any given year), the parent and his child will, essentially, be tagged with the “California Scarlet Letter” of being “not fully immunized.”

This child will be prohibited from attending California’s public schools, with home schooling being the only legal alternative, assuming his parents even have the financial means and/or ability to provide this.

Even though the California law will still allow for “medical exemptions,” the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), notes that under very narrow federal guidelines, less than one percent of those who might seek a medical exemption can actually obtain one, and even those who might technically qualify for one may be unable to find a California doctor willing to sign a medical exemption.


Against all logic or any sound public policy rationale, it appears that parents and children in California who refuse even one of the mandated immunizations required to attend public school, will truly become a unique minority in modern-day USA.

That is, they will comprise an explicitly-targeted, officially-persecuted minority, tagged by the state of California with the (completely undeserved) yet incredibly burdensome and potentially life-changing moniker of “not completely immunized.”

We must ask: Are those Californians who wish to avoid (any or all) vaccinations quickly becoming the only modern-day minority officially and formally targeted for government-sanction, from whom it is “OK” to remove basic human and civil rights? (If so, they will join residents of only Mississippi and West Virginia in this unfortunate group.)

To be clear, in the real world, a great deal of discrimination, harassment and abuse continues.  Yet, in our progressive era, children of minorities are generally defended by the State, at least rhetorically and in theory.

Racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, and children who are gay, physically, mentally or emotionally disabled, are not explicitly targeted by the State for harshly disparate treatment, nor are they the targets of State-sponsored attempts to formally deny them the right to a public education!

That said, we are hard-pressed to find many other recent examples wherein a state has, as in this instance, sought to carve out a minority group, to specifically remove from them rights they previously enjoyed.

Nor are children (even in California) who ~already~ suffer from certain diseases (HIV, Hepatitis B, diabetes, etc.) targeted for discrimination by the State. To the contrary, and properly so, the rights of these minorities are also protected and defended both in the law, and in the popular culture.

With California’s assault on vaccine exemptions, it is enshrining a disturbing exception to this laudable state of affairs, wherein genuine minorities are protected and defended. Will California, or other states, soon target other minorities for formal legal attack?


The US Supreme Court has affirmed that the “fear of contagion,” is NOT a constitutionally-protected reason for prohibiting children to access public education.

Moreover, as NVIC’s Barbara Loe Fisher notes:

More than 1.2 million people in the United States are infected with HIV 1 but government officials do not ban HIV infected children and adults from attending school, receiving medical care, being employed, or otherwise participating in society. In fact, there are anti-discrimination laws that guarantee civil rights protections for Americans infected with HIV or living with AIDS.

No Discrimination or Societal Sanctions for Infected Citizens

In 2012, public health officials reported that about two million people in America are infected with chlamydia, tuberculosis, syphilis and gonorrhea, and they estimate another three million people are infected with hepatitis C. Like those with HIV or AIDS, these citizens are not targeted for discrimination and blocked from getting a public education, being employed or moving freely in society.

Fisher further notes that it is recently-vaccinated children who are often the most contagious:

Live Polio Vaccinated Children Could Still Attend School

Between 1963 and 1999, doctors gave live oral polio vaccine to millions of healthy American children, who became infected with vaccine strain polioviruses they shed in their body fluids and transmitted, sometimes causing other children and adults to contract vaccine strain polio paralysis and die. Those with compromised immune systems were at special risk for getting vaccine strain polio and shedding vaccine strain poliovirus for longer periods of time than healthy persons. Yet, children recently given live oral polio vaccine were not excluded from attending school. [citation]

In spite of all this, with SB 277, California is about to create a new and distinct class of segregated citizens.

Indeed, California is poised to exclude children who have not been vaccinated for Hepatitus-B, yet do not have the disease of Hepatitis B, even as it prohibits discrimination against students who do in fact suffer from the disease of Hepatitis B. (As it should be, those with Hepatitis B should not be prohibited from attending public school.)

Has California entered The Twilight Zone?


As NVIC’s Barbara Loe Fisher makes clear in this 13-minute video, the California attack on vaccination exemptions represents a shocking setback for those who believe in the basic human right of informed consent.

Informed consent, a human right which was enshrined and since refined after the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s in WWII, is being thrown “under the bus” by the State of California.


As the ill-advised and arguably unconstitutional SB 277 legislation gained steam in the California Assembly, a coalition of groups opposing SB 277 publicly demanded an amendment to the legislation.

Their “Consumer Protection Amendment (CPA)” would have given California consumers the opportunity to sue vaccine manufacturers in the event of injury or death.

It also would create the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s attempts to block any lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.

Given the stakes here (possibly life-altering permanent injury and/or death from coerced vaccination, removal of genuine, non-coerced consent) the CPA was a moderate sop.

But the California legislators would not budge. The CPA was not adopted. As it stands now, if Gov. Brown signs the law, California parents wishing to exercise their children’s right to public education will be mandated to vaccinate their children, even as the manufacturers of the vaccines injected into their kids currently obtain full legal immunity from harm. [citation]


Adults who self-describe as “pro-vaccine” and who gloat over their California SB 277 “victory” — which for the time-being targets only California’s children — are well advised to “be careful what they wish for.”

Indeed, the vaccine industrial complex is gunning for adults as well, with the California Legislature already advancing mandatory vaccination for adult educators and daycare workers, the federal government preparing to track the unvaccinated, and the growth of a lucrative vaccine market (for young and old alike) expected to hit $100 Billion in ten years.

As the NVIC states:

A lucrative public-private business partnership has been forged between government and the pharmaceutical industry with your tax dollars to develop hundreds of new vaccines.

Drug companies completely shielded from product liability because Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have declared vaccines to be “unavoidably unsafe,” are rushing to licensure genetically engineered vaccines for syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, chlamydia, hepatitis C, e-coli, cytomegalovirus, ebola, salmonella, norovirus, adenovirus, enterovirus, asthma, diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, anti-smoking, anti-cocaine and anti-heroin use, and many more that Pharma and government will want many adults, as well as children, to buy and use. [citation]


SVC believes that the looming specter of mandatory vaccination in California, which may soon expand to many other states, should be to any thinking person a cause for genuine alarm.

Do YOU have a unique medical condition for which a “one-size fits all” vaccination approach may be contraindicated? Even if you are perfectly healthy, are you going to trust your doctor — who under federal law, is personally immune from any liability — to have carefully studied the vaccine product insert, for each and every vaccine product that might be mandated by your state and/or federal government?

Britigne Shaffer, in her recent piece, “First They Came for the Anti-Vaxxers,” may have summed it up best:

The pro-vaccine lobby has done a phenomenal job of inciting fear among the American public in a way that happens to serve its interests: Fear of little children who may not have been vaccinated; fear of other parents who may make choices different from yours; fear of a disease that in the developed world is far less deadly than lightning strikes. But they’ve left out one of the most frightening specters of all, one that has a truly horrifying historical record of death and destruction: An all-powerful state that can literally do whatever it wishes to those living under it. If that prospect frightens you less than the remote possibility that you might contract measles from my five year old, then quite frankly you scare the hell out of me.


Please contact Gov. Brown urging him not to sign the legislation.


Drug companies donated millions to California lawmakers before vaccine debate

Original here:



* Industry gave more than $2 million to current lawmakers in 2013-14
* Opponents of SB 277 link supporters to pharmaceutical donations
* Drug companies report no involvement in vaccine legislation

A subplot to the vociferous debate over the student vaccination bill moving through California’s Capitol is opponents’ allegations that the effort reflects the influence of the pharmaceutical industry.

Critics of Senate Bill 277, which would eliminate the personal belief and religious exemptions for schoolchildren, accuse the measure’s supporters in the Legislature of doing the bidding of donors who make vaccines and other pharmaceuticals.

The bill’s proponents and drug companies dismiss the charge. The companies’ lobbyist filings for the first quarter of this year as well as legislative committee reports show no connection between the pharmaceutical industry and SB 277.

“We aren’t pushing this bill behind the scenes,” said Priscilla VanderVeer, the senior director for communications for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, the industry’s main trade group. The group has no taken no position on SB 277, although the group has long backed vaccinations as sound public health policy, she said.

Read more here:

First They Came for the Anti-Vaxxers

By Bretigne Shaffer, April 23, 2015

Original here:


COMMENT: This essay is especially timely in light of the hysteria surrounding the so-called measles “outbreak,” the coordinated push to require mandatory vaccination, and outlets including USA Today calling for the arrest of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

Britigne Shaffer adroitly sums up ten rhetorical tricks used by pro-vaccine propagandists to shut down intelligent discussion of important issues surrounding vaccination. A must read!


Whatever Your Views on Vaccines, the Prospect of Forced Vaccination Ought to Make You Very Very Afraid
Do those who believe in mandated vaccination really want to establish the precedent of granting a government body the power to compel people to be injected with substances against their will? You may support the forced vaccination of other people’s children because you think vaccines are undeniably beneficial and problem-free. But you may not be so thrilled about the next substance the state decides everyone should have forced into their veins.

Do you really want to establish the precedent of being able to demand from your neighbors that they pose no risk to you at all? The corollary of course being that they may then demand the same of you? If as a society we decide that we have the right to demand a 100% risk-free environment in which to live then the potential intrusions into our lives are infinite.

… If you do not believe that individuals have the right to control what goes into their own bodies then I have to wonder what rights – if any – you do believe people still have.

It seems to me that, save choosing our mates for us, the last remnant of our self ownership lies in our right not to be directly assaulted, not to have unwanted drugs or other substances forced into our bodies. If you believe that the state has the right to do this, then there is essentially nothing left that it does not have a right to do.

The pro-vaccine lobby has done a phenomenal job of inciting fear among the American public in a way that happens to serve its interests: Fear of little children who may not have been vaccinated; fear of other parents who may make choices different from yours; fear of a disease that in the developed world is far less deadly than lightning strikes. But they’ve left out one of the most frightening specters of all, one that has a truly horrifying historical record of death and destruction: An all-powerful state that can literally do whatever it wishes to those living under it. If that prospect frightens you less than the remote possibility that you might contract measles from my five year old, then quite frankly you scare the hell out of me.

Full article here:

Lawrence Solomon: The untold story of measles

Original here:

Lawrence Solomon: April 16, 2014



Several decades following the vaccine’s introduction, the measles death rate rose, largely because the vaccine made adults, expectant mothers and infants more vulnerable

Early in the last century, measles killed millions of people a year. Then, bit by bit in countries of the developed world, the death rate dropped, by the 1960s by 98% or more. In the U.K., it dropped by an astounding 99.96%. And then, the measles vaccine entered the market.

After the vaccine’s introduction, the measles death rate continued to drop into the 1970s. Many scientists credit the continued decline entirely to the vaccine. Other scientists believe the vaccine played a minor role, if that, noting that most infectious diseases similarly petered out during the 20th century, including some, like scarlet fever, for which vaccines were never developed.

The credit for the century-long decline, scientists generally agree, goes to improved nutrition and improved health care, side effects of the West’s growing affluence. In the U.S., the death rate dropped by about 98%, from about 10 per 100,000 population a century ago to one fifth of one person by 1963, the year measles vaccines made their American debut. Both before and after vaccination started, victims tended to be poor.


In the pre-vaccine era, when the natural measles virus infected the entire population, measles — “typically a benign childhood illness,” as Clinical Pediatrics described it — was welcomed for providing lifetime immunity, thus avoiding dangerous adult infections. In today’s vaccine era, adults have accounted for one quarter to one half of measles cases; most of them involve pneumonia, one-quarter of them hospitalization.

Also importantly, measles during pregnancies have risen dangerously because expectant mothers no longer have lifetime immunity. Today’s vaccinated expectant mothers are at risk because the measles vaccine wanes with time and because it often fails to protect against measles.

Continue reading here: