CALawMama's Blog

Icon

Experiences at the interface of life, law, and motherhood in Cali

Letter to Governor Brown

June 26, 2015

To: Office of the Governor, Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr.

From: Dr. Rob Cohen

Dear Governor,

I was born in San Mateo, Ca in 1968. My parents were born in San Francisco. I now hail from San Diego County. I have lived and worked and played in San Diego and the Bay Area in different times of my life. And I am all California, all my life. I grew-up in California public schools. I graduated from San Jose State University. I am California. As are my family, as are all my friends. My family has been life long democrats for generations, since the 1880s. I have to say, for those reasons and because you’re a native local like me, I have always been a big fan of yours. And I’ve often wondered how great it would be if you became president of The United States of America. I’m proud of the Great State of California and The United States of America. It would be great to send one of our own to The White House.

However Governor, the party is over. The love-fest has evaporated. And I say that because SB277 has me afraid. My faith in my political leaders is marred by my own observation of how politics are run in our Great State. I wish I could take you out for a couple of ales at a local tavern so that we could just talk. Like two honorable men. Just a couple guys, having a couple beers, loosened-up, shoot from the hip, accepting of the other’s thoughts, and just taking care of business.

If I had that opportunity, I would tell you that SB277 scares me. It literally makes me afraid of government. And I have never been afraid of the government of the State of California or The USA until right now, at 47 years old. I have two little boys. I work my tail off for them, to carve out a fate for us that they can flourish within. But with SB277, I see a deranged future for them in a country that I’m not sure I’ll recognize if we pass laws like this. Think about it Governor….It’s pretty strange to pass laws that make medical procedures mandatory in order to acquire a civil right granted to us by the California Constitution: Public and Private education.

And Governor, SB277 isn’t about vaccinations or protecting the populace from infectious disease. AB2109 is already doing just that. And I’m not sure I’m against the concept of vaccinations. I’m not. However, there is no compelling state interest to pass such government over reach. On the contrary, consider these statistics from the California department of public health, since AB2109 took effect: Santa Monica-Malibu Unified: personal belief exemptions fell from 14.8% to 11.5%. With that, comes increased vaccinations. Capistrano Unified Personal Belief Exemptions fell from 9.5% to 8.6% since AB2109. Beverly Hills Unified fell from 11.9% to 5%. And Laguna Beach Unified fell from 15.1% to 2%. These are the types of communities Senator Pan is worried about. The last two examples were huge drops in Personal Belief Exemptions at 54% and 86% respectively. That is huge decline with increased vaccinations in those communities. Plus, overall MMR vaccination rates are stable and at or near record highs. Furthermore, There is no history of communicable disease outbreak in these communities that even comes close to the low numbers from the Disneyland outbreak. AB2109 is working. We should let it do it’s job. It has allowed for community immunity while simultaneously giving a small percentage their civil rights, thanks to you when you added the personal and religious belief exemptions. SB277 does not achieve this. SB277 only propagates fear in the populace and it segregates and discriminates a group of kids from their constitutional rights.

And Regarding Senator Pan….If we were in that tavern together enjoying a few libations in moderation, I would ask you what is this guy’s deal? He’s a medical doctor. Ok great. So what? Well, he’s a medical doctor that is a legislator. And he’s attempting to legislate a medical procedure that does carry some risk of harm. Vaccinations have harmed people, and the industry is not held liable, as it is indemnified by the United States Government, and is uninsurable to the risk. The government has paid out over $3billion in damages to those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries. That alone proves there is a risk of harm. In lieu of that, I would tell you this scenario of making something like this as mandatory, is very bad, Governor. That’s real bad. That concept to me leads us down a slippery slope where you and I right now, need to peer into the future to see what this leads to. The pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, who we all know are very powerful and very well-financed. And I’m not sure medical doctors or other healthcare professionals should be allowed to become politicians. They will just want to pass laws to promote their procedures and products, making the mandatory, so their industry and themselves can gain. Think about it and let’s cut the BS, that industry stands to profit when legislation is passed whereby their products are made mandatory to the population. And why not, they are not held liable. If one of their vaccine products hurts an individual, so what? They made the sale and they’re not liable. What a perfect margin they obtain from that dysfunctional scenario.

Mandatory medical procedures with risk of harm by an industry who is not held liable when there is harm. Wow. And then the government bails them out. So, where does that lead us? Where do the injured turn to? I really don’t know. That scares me for people. It has me interested in entering politics. This freedom-stripping and destruction of choice and parental rights has me thinking of entering politics. I became a republican because of this. The freedoms and liberties in this country have been a beacon of light for the world for over 200 years. I feel I need to fight to preserve that. We sell that down the river when we remove rights and make mandatory any medical procedure. Taking the choice away from people is insane to me. Disrespecting one’s personal beliefs based on their own research, disrespecting their faith in their own religion is unacceptable. Having the state control children outside of parental rights is disparaging and bizarre to me. I don’t want to cover the ingredients in vaccines, Governor. But I doubt Jews, Christians, and Muslims aren’t real thrilled with some of the crap in these vaccines. Pig and cattle cell cultures. Insect cell cultures. Fetal dna cultures. Give me a break. Some people just don’t want that stuff or Aluminum or other harmful chemicals injected into themselves or their babies. If people want to do that, great. Go ahead. But if people don’t, then we must consider that we are all equal under the law. And never segregate or discriminate.

Does this coming trend lead us to more medical professionals becoming politicians? Does it lead to more medical procedures be mandatory? If so, that is tyranny. If so, that means the government is inserting itself between and in destruction of the relationship between doctor and patient. That is a fact. And myself and other doctors despise that concept of stripped freedom and over-reaching government control which is driven by a multinational industry who very well may be the most financially powerful on the entire planet Earth.

Governor, that scares the shit out of people. Remember, we are a couple guys just chatting in a bar about the truth and honor. And how honor must be carried out. Because I’m not seeing a lot of honor in Sacramento right now. It’s on you Governor. You must lead the charge and be the one.

Governor, the honorable thing to do is to veto this bill and leave AB2109 alone. It’s doing it’s job. The honorable thing to do is to preserve religious and personal freedom. The Founding Fathers of this great Country built it upon those values. Values that ensure the survival of a society whose dependents came from tyrannical places where a soul’s right to breathe was squashed. All of our ancestors came from a place like that to build The United States of America. Where freedom to choose and liberty to breathe in life is insured. Bills and laws like this destroy that basic fabric. I mean, making mandatory potentially harmful medical procedures? Really? Geeze Louise, where will that lead is in the future?

Governor, end this tyranny now. You have a fantastic legacy. Don’t leave it tarnished with tyranny and hypocrisy. We are the United States of America. We are the last stand against tyranny. There is no where else to escape to. Let’s keep it that way. Veto this bill, Governor. Please. Please stay my hero.

Lastly, Governor, you have a track record for respecting parental rights. When you dismissed ab1444 in 2014, you indicated that you “prefer to let parents determine what is best for their children, rather than mandate….” In 2011, you dismissed sb105, regarding ski helmets, when you indicated you were concerned with “the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law. I believe parents have the ability and responsibility to make good choices for their children.”

Governor, I would tell you, as we sit in that tavern, and enjoy our libations, that your stance applies with SB277 as well. Ab2109 and the preservation of personal and religious exemptions is just and it works. Vaccination rates are up. And people still have their civil Liberties in tact. Community immunity is achieved. There is no epidemic, only fear mongering for a profit and some campaign contributions. Those are shallow reasons to pass a bill. Please veto SB277. Lastly Governor, and I appreciate your time. Pan and the co-authors claim that this bill protects kids who have diseases, who are compromised immunologically. The medical community has long-acknowledged and was stated by an expert witness in the senate health hearing, that cancer patients and those who are compromised immunologically should stay away from the recently vaccinated for 6 weeks, otherwise there is risk of catching the very diseases that were vaccinated for that immunocompromised kids would be exposed to in the public school setting. That’s an oxymoron. A contradiction. It’s not a logical argument and is fallatious.

With respect Governor, you are one of few heroes of mine. I ask you to leave your legacy free of tyranny and hypocrisy. Multi-national corporations who seek legislation to impose their will on the populace whereby they profit and we can potentially get hurt, and do get hurt, is the definition of tyranny to any logical, moral person. Veto this ridiculous bill. We are California. This is the United States of America. May God bless us all.

Yours very truly,,

Dr. Rob Cohen

Filed under: Uncategorized

Angelita Garcia-Stonehocker Speech June 25, 2015

Intro/Bio: Angelita Garcia-Stonehocker is here representing Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance for Healthy Choices. She is an educator and former professor at the Stanford School of Education, but, most importantly, she is a mother.

First, I want to teach you a kind of chant that people often use in Mexico when protesting government and corruption. “Viva” means “long live” and “los ninos” means “the children.”

When I say:………………………..You say:

Viva los niños!……………………………..Viva!

Awesome!

My father grew up as a migrant farm worker picking vegetables in the fields of central California. He fought alongside Cesar Chavez and many, many other Latino leaders for civil rights in the 70s. My mother is a 4th generation Mexican-American woman who taught me how to… ask questions. She fought for her life after suffering from a stroke, but she always taught me that the patient knows what is best for their body and a mother knows what’s best for her children. You see, in Latino families, MOTHERS are highly valued and respected to make decisions to protect their children.

What I am here to tell you today is that our Latino legislators have turned their back on Latina mothers and have forgotten their cultural value of motherhood. The Latino Caucus has largely ignored the stories that we, mothers, have told them about our children, thereby turning their back on their own people and their own values. Thousands of mothers have traveled hundreds of miles, with their children, week after week, to participate in this process. Latino legislators have the obligation to listen to those mothers AND to FIGHT for them. So far, all we have heard from them is silence and, worse, accusations from our representatives as if we were lying.

Senator Mendoza has refused to have a single face-to-face meeting with his constituents about any of these vaccine mandates. Senator deLeon has lied to us, even though some of us have personally worked along side him in the past. ASM Santiago ignored the stories of several Latina mothers with children who have been harmed by vaccines and he even left the room during the Health Hearing. ASM Gonzalez says WE are racist!… RACIST?!?… Really?… and ASM Calderon complains that we are too loud. Well, let me tell you, legislators, we are not going away!

We are not going away!

Let me tell you something else that I find funny. CBS News wrote an article this year about who uses PBEs, stating that “Parents who cite ‘personal beliefs’ to get their children exempted from routine vaccinations are typically white and well-to-do…. But the study also found” that such schools “had high rates of exemptions for medical reasons.” Dr. Paul Offit was confused about why that would be the case.

Well, let me tell you why that happens, Dr. Offit. First of all, many doctors admit that it is unnecessarily difficult to get a medical exemption, even with the current amendments to the bill, so parents with legitimate medical concerns often use a PBE as a de facto medical exemption. Secondly, Latino parents who have concerns about their children’s health, are consistently bullied by doctors and lied to by schools. While that is increasingly happening to parents of all colors, minorities often have little access to the legal knowledge and cutting edge medical research that affluent families typically use to help their children get exemptions as well as treatment for the complex injuries that occur after vaccination, such as brain inflammation, chronic seizures, or Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) [1].

Contrary to what our Latino Caucus has told us, SB 277 will hurt Latino families like mine. The confusion comes when we look at the numbers rather than listen to the stories of mothers. I challenge the Latino Caucus with this statement: Do not confuse our compliance for our support. Let me make this even clearer: Latinos strongly oppose vaccine mandates.

Recent genetic research suggests that vaccines may cause more problems for people with certain genetics, which are MORE common among Latinos and African Americans [2]. Dr. Richard C. Deth, professor of Pharmacology, wrote to our legislators to tell them that “the risk of adverse responses to vaccination is significantly greater for certain individuals and medical science is beginning to identify genetic factors which place people at greater risk… it is foolhardy to compel such vulnerable individuals to place themselves or their children at extraordinary risk by enacting mandatory vaccination legislation.”

Our group has been spreading the word about SB 277 to other Latinos in our communities and the response has been one of shock. Most parents are surprised when they find out that they actually had a choice, but many moms cry when they find out that they have valid concerns, but now their rights are being stripped away. Many times, we hear stories about children who have suffered life-threatening adverse reactions again and again because parents did not know they had a choice. Let me repeat myself: Latinos strongly oppose vaccine mandates.

Individuals and parents like us who speak out about adverse reactions are being ignored and vilified for our concerns. However, disregarding and minimizing the concerns of victims and mothers is a dangerous precedent that eliminates any hope of improving medical treatments, not to mention all accountability.

Vaccine mandates will remove the historically important ethical concept of informed consent. In the past, the lack of informed consent has led to many egregious acts in California. During the early 1900s, the lack of informed consent led to the forced sterilization of TENS of THOUSANDS of “undesirable” PEOPLE for the greater good, including Latinos and African Americans. More recently, when I was a child,the CDC “forgot” to inform Latino and African American parents in LA, near where I grew up, that they were giving an experimental vaccine to nearly 1,500 babies. The study was co-sponsored by Kaiser, which, of course, supports these vaccine mandates. They had to stop the study prematurely because of the death rate among babies who got a stronger dose of the vaccine in other parts of the world. To my knowledge, no follow-up studies have been done on the long-term effects of the vaccines in those children. Latinos strongly oppose vaccine mandates.

Vaccine-exempt individuals are now being used as scapegoats. The measles outbreak that started at Disneyland in 2014 might have affected nearly equal proportions of vaccine-compliant vs. non-compliant individuals. Among people with verified vaccination status who got measles during the outbreak, 30.5% (25 out of 82) were vaccinated and 18.3% (15 out of 82) were too young to be vaccinated [3]. Both of these groups are vaccine-compliant, yet still spread DISEASE in the outbreak. There may have been other vaccinated individuals who spread the measles, but there is no way to find out. Just to be clear, almost half of those who had documented status in the outbreak were vaccine compliant! Why aren’t we blaming vaccine failure for the outbreak?… On the contrary, the state is using the outbreak as a justification for systematically singling out a new minority group for discrimination and segregation.

History and recent events have shown that it is crucial that every human being has the right to make informed, individualized medical decisions for themselves and their children.

Viva los niños……………………………..viva

Sources:

[1] National Vaccine Information Center

[2] https://www.counsyl.com/services/family-prep-screen/diseases/mthfr-deficiency/

[3] CA Dept. of Public Health, Measles Update 4-17-2015

Filed under: Uncategorized

June 25, 2015 Speech

“A statistically insignificant chance of an adverse reaction to a vaccination may not ultimately shift public health policy underlying its use, but it means everything to the parents whose child is injured.” 90 Ky. L.J. 888

It may be unsurprising to those of you gathered here today to know that this quotation was taken from the Law Journal cited to in the Assembly Health Committee analysis. It may be further unsurprising that the nature of the article was misrepresented to serve the pro-SB 277 Agenda.

However, I hope that by this point we have made it clear, we will leave no misrepresentation unaddressed. We will leave no fact unchecked, especially when it comes to misrepresentations about the constitution and the law.

For example,— INSERT KIMBERLY STORY—separate post forthcoming

I’m so sorry I couldn’t be there with you today, but as we all know, it’s so hard to fight injustice while also having other work responsibilities AND being a full time homeschool mom of four children. I know you all understand, because you all are doing it too. But lucky for us, we have reinforcements, and our movement never sleeps. Thank you all for making the arduous trip. Everyone in attendance, and those of us who could not make it are so grateful!

We are together here today to decry the injustice that is taking place before our very eyes here in California.

I am a proud California native. My great grandparents emigrated here from Spain at the beginning of the 20th century, and opened the first Spanish American grocery store on University Avenue in Berkeley in the 1920s. My grandfather, who fought in WWII, served our great country as a member of the Army, the Coast Guard, AND the Navy, for which he was stationed in Alameda. I love California, and I love America, which is why I am so deeply committed to eviscerating SB 277.

Speaking of the military, BY THE WAY, California is home to some 40 military bases. Mothers and fathers routinely VOLUNTEER to go out into the world and risk their lives to FIGHT for our FREEDOMS. Those who are unfortunate enough to be based in California, will lose their constitutional rights under the privileges & immunities clause if this bill becomes law. The will lose their RIGHT to exercise choice over their own children’s medical care, the right protected in all 46 other states in this country, if SB 277 passes. Military families are NOT OK with this. NONE of us are OK with this. Because it is NOT OK.

Legislatures argue that TWO other states have no personal belief exceptions, therefore they are justified in passing SB 277. Well guess what? South Carolina flies the confederate flag over its Capitol building. Just because other states do things differently does not mean it is a GOOD idea.

But going back to the Privileges & Immunities clause, this is just one area of the law protected by our United States Constitution that the California State Legislature has decided to toss into the garbage.

Any legislature who would toss out our constitutionally protected rights in the name of political expediency does not DESERVE the PRIVILEGE of SERVING as an elected official. There are plenty of honest Americans out there who would do a better job. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that unpaid volunteers could do a better job of running the California Government than some of these representatives. At least in that case you know there is no financial conflict of interest!

In the course of SB 277’s history, the authors of SB 277 have a long and sordid history of misrepresenting and misconstruing the nature of the law on their side. The law is on OUR SIDE.

In fact, the Senate Judiciary Analysis, cited to Professor Chemerinsky’s Book, Constitutional Law Principles and Policies (2011) 4th Edition, p. 830-831, for the scholar’s purported belief that the Supreme Court did not GO FAR ENOUGH in emphasizing the utter importance of choices relating to the child’s education and protecting against unneeded institutionalism– which the analysis stated was a “massive curtailment of liberty.”

Our parental rights are protected by the Supreme Court. Our children’s’ rights to a free public education are protected by the US Supreme Court AND the California Supreme Court. The right to INFORMED CONSENT and the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to REFUSE MEDICAL PROCEDURES are PROTECTED by the US Supreme Court AND the California Supreme Court. Our children CANNOT be kept out of the classroom in the name of baseless mythologies and irrational fear, AS STATED by the US Supreme Court AND the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Make no mistake about it, the law is on our side, and just because our “representatives” choose to ignore the law, it does not cease to exist. The words that are printed in black and white in the case law books will not disappear. Justice will persevere, whether that takes place within the walls the Capitol Building, or within the walls of the United States Supreme Court. Thank you!

Filed under: Uncategorized

KPFA: Project Censored Segment on SB 277

http://www.projectcensored.org/caitlyn-obolsky-elliot-cohen-and-robert-krakow/

Filed under: Uncategorized

World Journal Coverage re SB 277 Legal Issues

I can’t link to the article, but it’s on the World Journal website (copy paste does this: http://www.worldjournal.com/3302013/article-%E4%B8%8D%E6%89%93%E7%96%AB%E8%8B%97%E7%A6%81%E4%B8%8A%E5%AD%B8-%E5%AE%B6%E9%95%B7%EF%BC%9A%E9%81%95%E6%B3%95/)

Here is the original text:

30多位家長、兒童和律師代表22日聚集在柏克萊市政府門口,反對加州目前正討論的強制學生打疫苗SB277法案。家長羅克威爾(Sarah Rockwell)說,家長有權為孩子選擇如何打疫苗。律師歐巴斯基(Caitlyn Obolsky)表示,加州憲法明訂學童受教育的權利。如果因為不打疫苗就拒絕孩子上學,那就違反了加州憲法。

在柏克萊市政府門口,家長和孩子們舉著各種標語口號,反對SB277法案。舊金山的羅克威爾帶著5歲和1歲兩個孩子也來到現場。她說,自己的孩子現在在家上課,不用馬上打疫苗,但很擔心將來法案通過後強制執行,「家長最瞭解也最關心自己孩子的健康,他們有權選擇是否打疫苗以及到底打哪種疫苗,這選擇權不能交到警察手裡。反對法案不是反對打疫苗,而是奪回我們自由選擇的權利。」

律師歐巴斯基聯合了160多位同行反對強制打疫苗法案。她說,加州憲法保障了適齡學童受教育的權利,如因為拒打疫苗就不讓孩子到校上課,就違反了加州憲法,法案需要進行嚴格審查。此外,數據統計,全世界兒童中,美國孩子打疫苗次數最多。疫苗確實能降低一些疾病的風險,但並不是絕對的。人們有權因為宗教或哲學原因拒打疫苗,如政府強制執行,反而會引起對疫苗安全性、合法性的懷疑,「依照世界標準來看,患者有事先知情同意權,瞭解治療方法的成功率等資訊,即使是疫苗。我們要求對所有疫苗進行充足的醫療調查。」

歐巴斯基表示,法案規定,家長不能以「個人理念」(personal belief)為由拒絕打疫苗,如不打,子女將無法到校上課,須改為在家上課(home-schooling)。在家上課有很多選項,其中之一是父母教孩子。但實際上,父母工作沒時間帶,所以要請日托(daycare),「這麼多家長要請日托,是非常大的市場,一些沒有品質、證件的日托機構會乘隙而入,帶來潛在的威脅。無良的日托照顧孩子,孩子健康出了問題怎麼辦?出現突發情況是否知道如何處理?

Here is what I am assuming is a Google Translate version:

More than 30 parents, children and lawyers on behalf of 22 municipalities gathered at the door of Berkeley , California, is now opposed to force students to discuss vaccination SB277 bill. Parents Rockwell (Sarah Rockwell) said parents have the right to choose how to vaccination for their children . Lawyers Ouba Chomsky (Caitlyn Obolsky) , said California Constitution express right of children to education . If you refuse the vaccine because they do not hit their children to school , it is a violation of the California Constitution .

In the Berkeley city government , parents and children holding a variety of slogans against the bill SB277 . Rockwell San Francisco with five years and a two -year-old children also came to the scene . She said their children now attend class at home , do not immediately hit the vaccine , but it is worried that after the passage of the bill to enforce , “Parents know best and most concerned about their children’s health, they have the right to choose whether to be vaccinated , and in the end to fight what vaccine this option is not into the hands of the police . oppose the bill are not against vaccination , but to regain our right to freedom of choice . Lawyers Ouba Chomsky unites over 160 peer oppose mandatory vaccination bill. She said the California Constitution guarantees the right to education of school-age children, such as refusing vaccination would not allow their children to attend school, in violation of the California Constitution, the bill needs to be scrutiny. Moreover, statistics, the world’s children, the United States the highest number of children vaccinated. Vaccines can indeed reduce the risk of some diseases, but not absolute. People have the right to refuse for religious or philosophical reasons for vaccination, such as government enforcement, it will lead to vaccine safety, legality doubt, “according to the world standards, patients with prior informed consent, to know the success rate of treatment methods and other information, even if a vaccine. We require all vaccines adequate medical investigation. “

Ouba Sharansky said Act, parents can not “personal philosophy” (personal belief) refused vaccination, if not beat, the children will not be able to attend school, to be replaced by the class at home (home-schooling). There are many options for classes at home, one of which parents teach children. But in fact, parents do not have time to work with, so please daycare (daycare), “so many parents want to please daycare, is a very big market, some do not quality, undocumented day-care institutions will Chengxi infiltration, potentially threat unscrupulous daycare child care, child health is a problem how to do? sudden know how to handle the situation? “

Filed under: Uncategorized

What is Reporting, Anyway?

I read this article in the Daily Californian, and it just made me sad.

The following is the statement that was read, in three languages, regarding the legal issues with SB 277, that were not at all mentioned in the article. But I guess we should be grateful that a “mainstream media” news source published a piece at all?

BTW, it will remove ALL personal belief exemptions, including religious. There will be NO exceptions. You will not be able to decline ONE vaccine, for ANY daycare, preschool, or typical school, FROM BIRTH. Because #truthinreporting

Also, I find it curious that the article cites to two professors, not well known on this issue, and completely ignores the letter written by, and signed by, lawyers, across the country in OPPOSITION to SB 277.

The LAW:

1) The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently and repeatedly held that parents have the constitutionally protected rights to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children.

U.S. Supreme Court Cases:

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 (1925)

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

2) Both the Supreme Court of the United States and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that it is unconstitutional to strip the rights of children and adults due to a fear of contagion, and that is for people actually afflicted with disease!

School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline 480 U.S. 273 (1987) Teacher with tuberculosis, court ruled it was unconstitutional to fire her. It rejected the argument that exclusion could be justified on the basis of “pernicious mythologies” or “irrational fear.”

New York State Ass’n of Retarded Children v. Carey, 612 F.2d 644, 650 (2d Cir.1979) cited to in

Chalk v. United Stated District Court Central Dist. of California, 840 F.2d 701 (1988) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case

3) Free public education is a fundamental right under California Law. SB 277 unconstitutionally prevents children from accessing ANY typical school setting on basis of fear of contagion. Children with Hepatitis B cannot be excluded from the classroom, teachers with tuberculosis or HIV cannot be excluded from the classroom. Children who are unvaccinated cannot be excluded from the classroom.

Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 606, 487 P.2d 1241, 1257 (1971) “”We indulge in no hyperbole to assert that society has a compelling interest in affording children an opportunity to attend school.”

The “American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390″] 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923).

4) Informed consent– if you mandate medical procedure then there is no informed consent! Even though the Supreme Court in Cruzan and California Supreme Court in Thor said people must have right to refuse medical treatment! Affirming the right of a prisoner to refuse treatment as a, “fundamental right of self-determination in medical decisions.”

Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept. Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990)

Thor v. Superior Court (Andrews)  5 Cal.4th 725 (1993)

The Consumer Protection Amendment was introduced last month in response to the several bills currently in the legislature that mandate vaccines.

It was designed to bring scrutiny to the fact that under currently existing California Law you cannot sue vaccine manufacturers for any injury or deaths caused by their products. The CPA uses the same language as the existing California statute allowing consumer protection for injuries or death due to tobacco use.

This amendment gives consumers in California the opportunity to sue vaccine manufacturers in the event of vaccine-related injury or death in state courts, rather than through the unconstitutional National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) which has no judge, no jury, no discovery, and no rules of evidence or civil procedure. In essence, a fake court.

Federal law requires that all lawsuits involving claims of vaccine injury or death, which are greater than $1,000, must originate in the NVICP Furthermore, the 2011 Supreme Court Case Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, held that determinations regarding design defect claims for vaccines, may only be decided within the NVICP, and may not be appealed to state or federal court.

Vaccine manufacturers are the only type of consumer product manufacturer that are completely shielded by state and federal law from accountability for their products.

Therefore, a coalition of groups working together to oppose SB 277, SB 792 presents the Consumer Protection Amendment to be included in SB 277. Amendment text available at Health Freedom Action. http://healthfreedomaction.org/consumer-protection-amendment/

Here are links to others that also covered the event, in all fairness:

http://www.telemundoareadelabahia.com/noticias/local/las-vacunas-decide-usted-o-el-gobierno-4314285238001-video.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/lawyers-nationwide-oppose-sb277-mandatory-vaccines-act-as-unconstitutional

Clip from the event: http://youtu.be/S6VQoQVHaKw

And related coverage:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_28331530/berkeley-voice-letters-vaccination-legislation-plan-cut-hills

http://www.examiner.com/article/march-against-mandatory-vaccine-bill-recall-centers-on-american-legal-freedoms

http://www.signalscv.com/m/section/35/article/138744/

You may have never seen these links before, because as soon as they are posted on Senator Pan’s page, the admin deletes them. #FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech

Filed under: Uncategorized

Assembly Floor Analysis

and I quote:

Legal considerations. Courts have determined that the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest and neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. As discussed at length in the Senate Judiciary Committee analysis, extensive case law establishes that the police powers of the state may restrict the parent’s control in many ways, such as requiring school attendance and regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor. This authority is not nullified because the parent grounds his claim to control the child’s course of conduct on religion or conscience. Thus, a parent cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for their child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. For a further discussion of the legal rights and ramifications of this bill, please see the Senate Judiciary Committee analysis as published on April 28, 2015.

Hmm, but see:

1) The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently and repeatedly held that parents have the constitutionally protected rights to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children.

U.S. Supreme Court Cases:

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 (1925)

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

2) Both the Supreme Court of the United States and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that it is unconstitutional to strip the rights of children and adults due to a fear of contagion, and that is for people actually afflicted with disease!

School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline 480 U.S. 273 (1987) Teacher with tuberculosis, court ruled it was unconstitutional to fire her. It rejected the argument that exclusion could be justified on the basis of “pernicious mythologies” or “irrational fear.”

New York State Ass’n of Retarded Children v. Carey, 612 F.2d 644, 650 (2d Cir.1979) cited to in

Chalk v. United Stated District Court Central Dist. of California, 840 F.2d 701 (1988) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case

3) Free public education is a fundamental right under California Law. SB 277 unconstitutionally prevents children from accessing ANY typical school setting on basis of fear of contagion. Children with Hepatitis B cannot be excluded from the classroom, teachers with tuberculosis or HIV cannot be excluded from the classroom. Children who are unvaccinated cannot be excluded from the classroom.

Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 606, 487 P.2d 1241, 1257 (1971) “”We indulge in no hyperbole to assert that society has a compelling interest in affording children an opportunity to attend school.”

The “American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390″] 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923).

4) Informed consent– if you mandate medical procedure then there is no informed consent! Even though the Supreme Court in Cruzan and California Supreme Court in Thor said people must have right to refuse medical treatment! Affirming the right of a prisoner to refuse treatment as a, “fundamental right of self-determination in medical decisions.”

Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept. Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990)

Thor v. Superior Court (Andrews)  5 Cal.4th 725 (1993)

The Consumer Protection Amendment was introduced last month in response to the several bills currently in the legislature that mandate vaccines.

It was designed to bring scrutiny to the fact that under currently existing California Law you cannot sue vaccine manufacturers for any injury or deaths caused by their products. The CPA uses the same language as the existing California statute allowing consumer protection for injuries or death due to tobacco use.

This amendment gives consumers in California the opportunity to sue vaccine manufacturers in the event of vaccine-related injury or death in state courts, rather than through the unconstitutional National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) which has no judge, no jury, no discovery, and no rules of evidence or civil procedure. In essence, a fake court.

Federal law requires that all lawsuits involving claims of vaccine injury or death, which are greater than $1,000, must originate in the NVICP Furthermore, the 2011 Supreme Court Case Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, held that determinations regarding design defect claims for vaccines, may only be decided within the NVICP, and may not be appealed to state or federal court.

Vaccine manufacturers are the only type of consumer product manufacturer that are completely shielded by state and federal law from accountability for their products.

Therefore, a coalition of groups working together to oppose SB 277, SB 792 presents the Consumer Protection Amendment to be included in SB 277. Amendment text available at Health Freedom Action. http://healthfreedomaction.org/consumer-protection-amendment/
gavel-3-1409593-m

Filed under: Uncategorized

SB277 Legal Issues in Russian

Калифорния дали сегодня интервью, разъясняя неконституционные аспекты законопроекта SB 277

1) Верховный суд США неизменно и неоднократно указывал, что родительские права на принятие решений касающихся вопросов воспитания своих детей, охраняются конституцией.

Случаи из судебной практики Верховного суда США:

Мейер против штата Небраска, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Пирс против Общества Сестер, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 (1925)

Роу против Уэйда, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): «свобода персонального выбора в делах брака и семейной жизни является одной из свобод защищенных в 14ой поправке»

Пархам против Пархама младшего, 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

2) Верховный суд США и Девятый окружной апелляционный суд установили что лишение прав детей и взрослых из-за боязни заражения является антиконституционным.  И это о людях на самом деле пораженных болезнью!

Школьный совет округа Нассау против Арлайн 480 U.S. 273 (1987) Суд установил, что увольнение учителя с туберкулезом является незаконным. Он отклонил аргументы на увольнение, назвав их  «пагубной мифологией» и «иррациональным страхом».

Судебное дело Ассоциации умственно отсталых детей штата Нью Йорк против Кэри, 612 F.2d 644, 650 (2d Cir.1979) ссылалось на дело Девятого окружного апелляционного суда Чалк против Окружного суда США Центрального района Калифорнии

3) Бесплатное государственное образование – фундаментальное право по Калифорнийским законам. SB277 антиконституционно запрещает доступ детям в любую школу на основе страха заражения. Дети с гепатитом В не могут быть выгнаны из школы, учителя с туберкулезом или ВИЧ не могут быть выгнаны из школы. Непривитых детей то же нельзя выгнать из школы.

Серрано против Прист, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 606, 487 P.2d 1241, 1257 (1971) «Мы не применяем никакую гиперболу, говоря что это насущный интерес общества предоставить детям возможность посещать школу.»

Американский народ всегда считал образование и приобретение знаний вопросом первостепенной важности. Мэйер против штата Небраска, 262 U.S. 390″ 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923).

4) Информированное согласие. Обязательность медицинской процедуры исключает возможность информированного согласия на нее. Верховный суд в деле Крузана и Верховный суд Калифорнии в деле Тора установили, что люди должны иметь право отказаться от лечения, утверждая, что право заключенного на отказ от лечения это «фундаментальное право самоопределения в вопросе медицинских решений».

Крузан против директора  департамента здравоохранения штата Миссури, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990)

Тор против Верховного суда (Эндрюс)  5 Cal.4th 725 (1993)

В  прошлом месяце была предоставлена поправка в Закон о Защите Прав Потребителей  в ответ на несколько законопроектов в законодательном органе, делающих обязательной вакцинацию. Поправка была разработана, что бы вынести на обсуждение тот факт, что по существующему в настоящее время Калифорнийскому законодательству нельзя подать в суд на производителя вакцин, если их продукт вызвал смерть или причинил какой-либо ущерб здоровью. Поправка в закон о защите прав потребителя использует такой же язык, как и существующее калифорнийское законодательство, разрешающее защиту прав потребителя за вред здоровью или смерть, нанесенную употреблением табака.

Эта поправка дает потребителям Калифорнии возможность судить производителей вакцин за связанные с вакцинацией ущерб здоровью или смерть в судах штата, а не в антиконституционной Национальной программе компенсации травм от вакцин, в которой нет ни судей, ни присяжных, ни открытий и никаких правил свидетельства или гражданского судопроизводства. В сущности, фальшивый суд. Федеральный закон требует, что бы все судебные процессы по искам о вреде здоровью или смерти от вакцины с суммой иска больше 1000$ должны рассматриваться в Национальной программе компенсации травм от вакцин. Кроме того в 2011 году Верховный суд в деле Брайершвитц против Уайт постановил, что претензии, касающиеся дефектов в разработке вакцин, могут быть решены только в Национальной программе компенсации травм от вакцин и не могут быть обжалованы в суде штата или федеральном суде. Производители вакцин – единственные производители потребительских товаров, которые не несут ответственности за свой продукт и полностью защищены законом штата и федеральным законом.

Таким образом, коалиция групп, работающая вместе, что бы противостоять SB 277, SB 792 предоставляет поправку в закон о защите прав потребителей, что бы она была включена в SB 277. Текст поправки доступен в группе «Движение за свободу и здоровье».

http://healthfreedomaction.org/consumerprotectionamendment/

 

Filed under: Uncategorized

Las vacunas: Decide usted o el gobierno?

1) La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos ha declarado consistentemente y repetidamente que los

padres tienen los derechos protegidos por la Constitución para tomar decisiones con respecto a la

crianza de sus hijos.

Casos de La Corte Suprema de Los Estados Unidos (EE.UU.):

Meyer contra Nebraska, 262 EE.UU. 390 (1923)

Pierce contra Sociedad de Hermanas, 268 EE.UU. 510, 534-535 (1925)

Roe contra Wade, 410 EE.UU 113 (1973): “”libertad de elección personal en los asuntos del matrimonio

y la vida familiar es una de las libertades protegidas por la Cláusula del Debido Proceso de la

Decimocuarta Enmienda. ”

Parham v. J. R., 442 EE.UU. 584 (1979)

2) ¡Tanto la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos como la Corte del Noveno Circuito de Apelaciones ha

dictaminado que es inconstitucional el despojar de los derechos de los niños y adultos debido a un

miedo al contagio, y que es para las personas que sufren de la enfermedad en realidad!

El Consejo Escolar del condado de Nassau contra Arline 480 EE.UU. 273 (1987) Profesor con

tuberculosis, el tribunal dictaminó que era inconstitucional el despedirla. Rechazó el argumento de que

la exclusión podría justificarse sobre la base de las “mitologías perniciosos” o “miedo irracional.”

Asociación del Estado de Nueva York para Niños Retrasados contra Carey, 612 F. 2d 644, 650 (2d Cir.

1979) citado en el

Chalk contra Distrito Tribunal de los Estado Unidos Distrito Central de California, 840 F. 2d 701 (1988)

Corte del Noveno Circuito de Apelaciones del caso

3) La educación pública gratuita es un derecho fundamental bajo la Ley de California. SB 277

inconstitucionalmente impide que los niños tengan acceso a cualquier entorno típico de la escuela sobre

la base de miedo al contagio. Los niños con hepatitis B no pueden ser excluidos de la clase, los

profesores con tuberculosis o el VIH no pueden ser excluidos de la clase. Los niños que son vacunados

no pueden ser excluidos de la clase.

Serrano v. Sacerdote, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 606, 487 P.2d 1241, 1257 (1971) “” No nos entregamos a ninguna

exageración para afirmar que la sociedad tiene un interés apremiante en ofrecerles a los niños la

oportunidad de asistir la escuela. ”

El “pueblo estadounidense siempre han considerado la educación y [la] adquisición de conocimientos

como asuntos de importancia suprema.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 EE.UU. 390 “] 262 EE.UU. 390, 400

(1923).

4) Consentimiento Informado— ¡Si ordena procedimiento médico, entonces no hay consentimiento

informado! ¡A pesar de la Corte Suprema en Cruzan y la Corte Suprema de California en Thor dijo que las

personas deben tener derecho a rechazar el tratamiento médico! Afirmando el derecho de un preso a

rechazar el tratamiento como un “derecho fundamental de la autodeterminación en las decisiones

médicas.”

Cruzan v. Director de Missouri Departamento de Salud, 497 EE.UU. 261, 278 (1990)

Thor v. Tribunal Superior (Andrews) 5 Cal.4th 725 (1993)

La Enmienda de Protección al Consumidor fue presentado el mes pasado en respuesta a los varios

proyectos de ley actualmente en la legislatura que ordenan el mandato de las vacunas.

Fue diseñado para escrudiñar el hecho de que, bajo la ley de California que existe actualmente no se

puede demandar a los fabricantes de vacunas para cualquier lesión o muertes causadas por sus

productos. El CPA utiliza el mismo idioma que el estatuto de California existente permitiendo la

protección del consumidor para lesiones o la muerte debido al uso de tabaco.

Esta enmienda ofrece a los consumidores en California la oportunidad de demandar a los fabricantes de

vacunas en caso de lesión o muerte relacionada con la vacuna en los tribunales estatales, en lugar del

Programa Nacional de Vacunas inconstitucional Lesiones de Compensación (NVICP) que no tiene ningún

juez, ningún jurado, ningún descubrimiento, y no hay reglas de evidencia o procedimiento civil. En

esencia, un tribunal falso.

La ley federal requiere que todas las demandas que involucran reclamos de lesiones o muerte a causa

de las vacunas, mayores de $ 1.000, deberán ser originarios de la NVICP. Además, el Caso de la Corte

Suprema en 2011 Bruesewitz contra Wyeth, sostuvo que las determinaciones relativas a las

reclamaciones de defectos de diseño de vacunas, sólo podrán ser decididas en el NVICP, y no se puede

ser apelado a un tribunal estatal o federal.

Los fabricantes de vacunas son el único tipo de fabricante de productos de consumo que están

completamente protegido por las leyes estatales y federales de rendición de cuentas para sus

productos.

Por lo tanto, una coalición de grupos de trabajando en conjunto para oponerse a SB 277 y SB 792

presenta la Protección del Consumidor Enmienda para ser incluido en la SB 277. Texto de la enmienda

disponible en la Acción de Libertad de la Salud.

http://healthfreedomaction.org/consumer-protection-

amendment/

http://www.telemundoareadelabahia.com/noticias/local/las-vacunas-decide-usted-o-el-gobierno-4314285238001-video.html

Filed under: Uncategorized

Proof California is the Bellweather State– The Abolishment of the “First Bite’s Free” Rule

In a South Carolina case from 1985:

California has dealt with this matter by way of statute. Out of that statute has come a jury instruction found in California Jury Instructions — Civil (1950 Supp.). We approve. It reads as follows:

The law of California provides that the owner of any dog which bites a person while such person is on or in a public place or is lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of such dog, is liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten regardless of whether or not the dog previously had been vicious, regardless of the owner’s knowledge or lack of knowledge of any such viciousness, and regardless of whether or not the owner has been negligent in respect to the dog, provided, however, that if a person knowingly and voluntarily invites attack upon himself [herself], or if, when on the property of the dog owner, a person voluntarily, knowingly, and without reasonable necessity, exposes himself [herself] to the danger, the owner of the dog is not liable for the consequences …

We think the California rule is sound. It is short of the rule of strict liability for dogs. We sustain the trial court on this additional ground. All cases heretofore decided by this Court inconsistent with the view herein expressed are hereby overruled. Many of these cases are cited in the South Carolina Digest, Animals § 66, et seq.

Other states even adopt our dog bite laws.

SB277 will forever change the legal landscape of this country, allowing for mandated medical procedures with ZERO choice in the matter. Please oppose!

Filed under: Uncategorized

Blog Stats

  • 8,512 hits
Follow CALawMama's Blog on WordPress.com

Blog Stats

  • 8,512 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers