CALawMama's Blog


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

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.

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

Clip from the event:

And related coverage:

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

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: