CALawMama's Blog

Icon

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

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

2 Responses

  1. fineartistval says:

    Thank you, again, Caitlyn!!!
    This is very well thought out and written. Justice Sotomayor would be proud of you. In fact, I was considering asking her to support your findings and the CPA.
    What do you think?

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

%d bloggers like this: