Plan B Forum

Jerry Brown signs bill requiring childhood vaccinations

By Melody Gutierrez Updated 10:48 am, Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Gov. Jerry Brown signed controversial legislation Tuesday that will make California one of the strictest states in requiring children to be vaccinated before attending public and private schools or day care, beginning in January.

Noting the “widespread interest and controversy” surrounding SB277, Brown said he signed the bill because “the science is clear that vaccines dramatically protect children against a number of infectious and dangerous diseases.”

SB277 eliminates an exemption many parents have used to opt their children out of some of all of the 10 required school vaccines, based on personal or religious beliefs. The new law takes effect on Jan. 1. But even after that date, children enrolled in school or day care who are unvaccinated because of a personal belief exemption can continue to attend until their next scheduled vaccine check. Such checks occur in kindergarten, seventh grade or when students enter a new school.

“While it's true that no medical intervention is without risk, the evidence shows that immunization powerfully benefits and protects the community,” Brown wrote in a signing message with the bill.

Noting the “considerable debate” in the Legislature about the vaccine mandate, Brown called attention to an amendment allowing children to receive a medical exemption from a doctor. That exemption is broad and can be based on family medical history—such as a sibling’s adverse reaction to a vaccine. Many of the thousands of parents who lined Capitol hallways to express their opposition to the bill had said medical exemptions were too difficult to obtain.

“SB277, while requiring that school children be vaccinated, explicitly provides an exception when a physician believes that circumstances—in the judgement and sound discretion of the physician—so warrant,” Brown wrote.

source

Gee, there are going to be a lot of unhappy New Agers...

Many of the thousands of parents who lined Capitol hallways to express their opposition to the bill had said medical exemptions were too difficult to obtain.

Just a guess - maybe because in the vast majority of cases they aren't medically warranted?

“While it's true that no medical intervention is without risk, the evidence shows that immunization powerfully benefits and protects the community,”

This man can state things quite well; he doesn't deny that there is a risk, but counters that with the broad benefits of vaccination. After all the rhetoric on both sides it's refreshing to see someone state the issue clearly.

My only concern is in eliminating the religious exemption he is setting this up for a constitutional challenge. This will remain to be seen.

I looked at the mandated vaccines and the only one I have a concern about is chickenpox, a relatively minor disease in most cases. There clearly are benefits to receiving the vaccine in reducing the chances of later getting shingles, but that is a personal, not a public health concern akin to the vaccine against HPV (which is not mandated). Sure, some people will get very sick if exposed to chickenpox, but the same is true for flu (and a flu vaccine is not mandated).

Big RR wrote: My only concern is in eliminating the religious exemption he is setting this up for a constitutional challenge. This will remain to be seen.

There is nothing in the Constitution or its jurisprudence that requires a state to grant religious exemptions to public health and safety laws of general application, as Justice Scalia noted in the Court's opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. The state is only prohibited from enacting health and safety laws that are a pretext for religious discrimination. I think you have much more of a constitutional problem when you start granting religious exemptions from otherwise applicable law, as demonstrated by the ridiculous decisions that have come down since Congress enacted the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," a bit of political pandering that has now given churchgoers (but only churchgoers) the right to take hallucinogenic drugs and corporations (but only sincerely believing corporations) the right to deny employees healthcare coverage.

corporations (but only sincerely believing corporations)...

Hey, who are you to question the sincerity of the beliefs of a corporation?

Corporations are people too...if you prick them, do they not bleed?

You're going to hurt their feelings...

Lord Jim wrote:Corporations are people too...if you prick them, do they not bleed?

You're going to hurt their feelings...

Oh, if only...

I have a cousin who is both an MD and a veterinarian. He is now an anti vaccine individual. He tells me he has investigated on his own and has concluded no one should be forced. We are presently carping back and forth on Facebook.

Sue U wrote:

Big RR wrote: My only concern is in eliminating the religious exemption he is setting this up for a constitutional challenge. This will remain to be seen.

There is nothing in the Constitution or its jurisprudence that requires a state to grant religious exemptions to public health and safety laws of general application, as Justice Scalia noted in the Court's opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. The state is only prohibited from enacting health and safety laws that are a pretext for religious discrimination. I think you have much more of a constitutional problem when you start granting religious exemptions from otherwise applicable law, as demonstrated by the ridiculous decisions that have come down since Congress enacted the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," a bit of political pandering that has now given churchgoers (but only churchgoers) the right to take hallucinogenic drugs and corporations (but only sincerely believing corporations) the right to deny employees healthcare coverage.

THIS!

TPFKA@W wrote:I have a cousin who is both an MD and a veterinarian. He is now an anti vaccine individual. He tells me he has investigated on his own and has concluded no one should be forced. We are presently carping back and forth on Facebook.

For all his education . . . well, keep after him @W. Doesn't he care about disease eradication? Or is he another one of those self-centered belly-button gazers......

Guinevere wrote:

TPFKA@W wrote:I have a cousin who is both an MD and a veterinarian. He is now an anti vaccine individual. He tells me he has investigated on his own and has concluded no one should be forced. We are presently carping back and forth on Facebook.

For all his education . . . well, keep after him @W. Doesn't he care about disease eradication? Or is he another one of those self-centered belly-button gazers......

Forrest is not any of that. He is a former Green Beret with more ambition in his pinky than most I know have collectively. (He is the son of the relative I think I mentioned here who is still shoeing horses at age 89. Tenacity runs in the blood.)
He is however ulra right winged conservative and apparently more libertarian than I realized.
This is not an argument I will be winning.

A veterinarian that doesn't believe in vaccines?

That's kinda like being a nurse and not believing in bed pans.

Sue--I won't argue with you re the state of the law currently, but after Hobby Lobby I wouldn't put anything beyond what the court might do in the name of religious freedom.