Breaking News: Coalition opposed to SB77 challenges manufacturer liability immunity with Consumer Protection Amendment

Read original here: http://healthfreedomaction.org/consumer-protection-amendment/

==========

Press Release
May 28, 2015

CPA1Contact:
Caitlyn Gilley Obolsky, Esq.
510-526-5078
caitlyn@obolskylaw.com    
       

“The Consumer Protection Amendment (CPA) was brought forth today in California to strike a balance between vaccine mandates and the absence of vaccine manufacturer liability highlighted by SB 277.

As the controversial bill advances through the California legislature, SB 277 has been met with strong and growing public resistance. This citizen movement is drawing attention to the legal implications of the arcane National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986.

This amendment gives consumers in California the opportunity to sue vaccine manufacturers in the event of injury or death.

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

Therefore, a coalition of groups working together to oppose SB 277 presents the following Amendment to be included in SB 277:

Whereas:

► According to vaccine manufacturers, pursuant to The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, unlike all other consumer product manufacturers, they cannot be sued in California State or Federal courts for damages arising from injury or death associated with vaccines. They cite 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34.

►As currently written, SB 277 will eliminate parental choice regarding vaccination for all children, as the bill does not allow for modification to state-mandated vaccines as a condition of daycare, elementary, or secondary school admission.

Consumer Protection Amendment:

It is the intention of the California Legislature in enacting the amendments to subdivisions 120325, 120335, 120338, 120370 of the Health and Safety Code, and any other related or relevant amendments, statutes, code sections, or provisions adopted at the 2015-2016 Regular Session, to declare that there exists no statutory bar to vaccination or vaccine-related personal injury, wrongful death, or other tort claims against vaccine manufacturers and their successors in interest by minor children, parents, guardians, their legal representatives, or others who have suffered or incurred injuries, damages, or costs arising from the administration of vaccines. It is also the intention of the Legislature to clarify that those legal claims that were or are brought shall be determined on their merits, without the imposition of any claim of statutory bar or categorical defense.”

***

While urging addition of this amendment to SB 277, these groups uphold their opposition to SB 277.

Americans for Vaccine Choice
Arizona Coalition for Vaccine Awareness
AWAKE California
A Voice for Choice
California Chiropractic Association (CCA)
California Coalition for Health Choice (CCHC)
California Coalition for Vaccine Choice (CCVC)
Campaign for Liberty
Center for Personal Rights
Citizens for Health
Connecticut Coalition for Vaccine Rights
Educate. Advocate.
Fearless Parent
GMO Free News
GreenMedInfo
Heal Thyself!
Health Choice
Health Freedom Action
Liberty Coalition
Momma’s Organics
Moms Across America
Moms in Charge
New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice
Organic Sacramento
Our Kids Our Choice
National Health Federation
New Earth Parenting
SaneVAX
Stop Mandatory Vaccination
Vaccine Choice Prayer Community
Vaccine Injury Justice Center
Vaccine Liberation
Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice

Call to Action

Health Freedom Action™ Commentary

“While California cannot increase the legal rights of the vaccine injured to make claims, that fact will be highlighted by this proposal and should put Senator Richard Pan — and other sponsors and supporters of SB 277 and similar bills — in the uncomfortable position of either explicitly admitting Federal preemption of most vaccine injury claims, or denying that fact, which can easily be refuted.

The proposed amendment is analogous to a cross-examination question to which the witness (Pan and other California state legislators) must provide an answer, which can only be helpful to the cross-examiner.

There is no good response that Senator Pan can make to this amendment. If he says it is irrelevant, such an answer reveals how the rights of California citizens and residents have been abrogated by the Federal government. If Pan supports the amendment, he affirms the existence of vaccine injury and rights of the injured to pursue claims, thereby highlighting the lack of remedies available in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”

Robert J. Krakow, Esq
Vaccine Injury Justice Center

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s