California Vaccine Refusers to Get “Court Order” or “CPS Visit” Under SB277

by Jefferey Jaxon
Health Impact News

California Senate Bill 277 (SB277) is setting a dangerous precedent by removing medical consent from California school children in 2016. In addition, the bill appears to be in violation of the Nuremberg Codes for informed medical consent. However, pressure is already being felt as school administrators and directors have chosen to ignore current law and force vaccine schedules on school children.

Months ago at the start of the 2015 school year, California students faced a rude awakening as they were met with scare tactics and demands to vaccinate that had no legal standing. Latino mothers launched a formal complaint after their children, belonging to the Los Angeles Unified School District, were taken out of classes the first day of school despite having a Personal Belief Exemption on file. Adding further to the confusion, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) had not updated their website in Spanish to reflect the new SB277 requirements and when they would take effect. Other reports have surfaced of California schools doing similar tactics.

As it stands today, if any school, preschool, or daycare facility does not accept a personal belief exemption for the 2015-2016 school year they are in violation of the law. Did the school nurses not get the letter from the CDPH advising them the effective date of SB277 was July 1st, 2016? Where is the leadership of Tom Torlakson, California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction and leader of the California Department of Education, advising school districts and counties what their limitations are?

California Schools to Vaccinate Special Needs Children by Court Order in 2016

The Orange County Department of Education Legal Division has recently sent around a briefing to their school superintendents, directors and nurses giving their answers to common questions about SB277. Of concern are the way special education students relying on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) will be treated under SB277.

The Orange County Department of Education’s Legal Division has officially given these marching orders to its district’s educational directors:

Our office interprets this provision as meaning that special education students must be enrolled even if they are not vaccinated, but that special education students are still required to be vaccinated and the parents of the special education students need to comply with the provisions of Senate Bill 277. The language of Senate Bill 277 does not specify any penalties or remedies if parents refuse to vaccinate their children. However, school districts may, if necessary, after advising parents in writing of the legal requirements of Senate Bill 277, contact the Orange County Health Care Agency for assistance or seek a court order ordering parents to vaccinate their children.

The language of SB277 left enforcement and vaccine noncompliance up to the school’s governing authority for each district. Orange County’s Department of Education’s Legal Division interprets that a court order to vaccinate will be an option. Will all California school districts, by way of their legal counsels, be directed to file court orders against noncomplying parents of all school children in 2016? These court orders would essentially trump the unvaccinated special needs child’s legal right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in California under the U.S. Department of Education’s requirements under Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The other option given by the Orange County Department of Education’s Legal Division for SB277 vaccine noncompliance directs school staff to “Contact the Orange County Health Care Agency for assistance.” In the real world, this means Child Protective Services (CPS) will most likely get involved. This clear assumption is backed up by the fact that the California Educators Training Module, required to be taken by all teachers and staff, requires the reporting of children to CPS due to “Medical neglect, such as not providing appropriate medical care, dental care, or immunizations.” Yet here again, it appears that California schools are ignoring the law which says:

California Penel Code 11165.2

“A child receiving treatment by spiritual means as provided in Section 16509.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or not receiving specified medical treatment for religious reasons, shall not for that reason alone be considered a neglected child. An informed and appropriate medical decision made by parent or guardian after consultation with a physician or physicians who have examined the minor does not constitute neglect.”

California Parents Must Take Action!

It is essential that all California parents that believe in medical freedom file a personal belief vaccine exemption before the January 1st deadline. This is the only method known at this stage to grandfather a waiver into your child’s 2016 school year. However, SB277 isn’t set to become law until July of 2016. It is important for parents to know they do not have to sign this affidavit if they are not comfortable with the language. Parents can also write their own affidavit if they choose. California Code 120365 states:

(a) Immunization of a person shall not be required for admission to a school or other institution listed in Section120335 if the parent or guardian or adult who has assumed responsibility for his or her care and custody in the case of a minor, or the person seeking admission if an emancipated minor, files with the governing authority a letter or affidavit that documents which immunizations required by Section 120355 have been given, and which immunizations have not been given on the basis that they are contrary to his or her beliefs. (b) On and after January 1, 2014, a form prescribed by the State Department of Public Health shall accompany the letter or affidavit filed pursuant to subdivision.

The SB277 referendum is in full swing having gained over 300,000 signatures. If the referendum succeeds during its final week of signature gathering, it will effectively postpone SB277 another year. This will give parents and communities another year to continue educating others. In addition, a successful referendum will protect one more group of students entering Kindergarten and 7^th grade by placing it on the November 2016 ballot. California citizens are encouraged to exercise their Constitutional rights to regress their grievances via the Peoples’ veto. Individuals and organizations who believe in medical freedom and personal liberties throughout the country are encouraged to support the SB277 referendum.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.

Read:

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

Published on September 24, 2015

7 Comments

James Kelly October 18, 2015 at 7:58 am - Reply

Kameron-Krause said:
> I cannot believe that people aren’t more up in arms about this. This country and especially the state of California is turning into Nazi Germany. Under the premise of the greater good, just like the Nazis claimed they were doing experimenting on people against their will for. You never take away someones rights for another ones. Who decides which person is more valuable. Its outrageous. And since when is it a law that every American citizen is required to practice the mainstream type.  medicine from MDs. I thought this country was founded on the personal rights and freedoms that our founding fathers didn’t have under tyrannical governments in Europe. Havent we as the human race learned nothing from giving government too much power. That’s it leads to evil and genocide and a civilization of slaves not freedom. Wake up everyone. f they can get away with this anything goes.

People are not up in arms because the 1%ers and corps own the press, control the message, control the people. America, land of the free, home of the brave, yeah right…

paul kangas September 25, 2015 at 10:30 pm - Reply

I am so glad that Jenny McCarthy  & Donald Trump are raising this issue.   
Trump is quite good.  Especially his debate with Dr. Carson, the other Republican candidate for President.
Both of them are leading in the polls.
I will not vote for Trump, but I hope his great quips on how dangerous the “full load” of vaccines can be on a baby
sure hit the nail on the head.
Dr. Rand Paul too.  
Now if Bernie Sanders would just come out against vaccines.

Jennifer September 25, 2015 at 6:45 pm - Reply

Well, California was a leader in the Eugenics movement in the early 20th century, so I suppose this type of legislation follows the same vision – kill the chemically sensitive so that they aren’t a burden on the “fit” people, and remove children from “unfit” parents and drug them up so they won’t be able to have children to carry on their parents’ genes.

TerryBug September 25, 2015 at 2:36 am - Reply

Interesting exchange regarding “police powers” between Mary Holland, JD and Senator Jackson during the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing. Mary Holland’s testimony starts at 57:55

http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=2802

HealthFreedom September 25, 2015 at 2:35 am - Reply

What about Prop 65? The language is that mercury in dental fillings has been known to cause reproductive harm in pregnant women in the State of CA.  Are we to believe that it is perfectly safe in vaccines? What about aluminum? What is the general consensus on this?

Proposition 65 in Plain Language!
Follow this link to download a pdf copy of this document

What Is Proposition 65?
In 1986, California voters approved an initiative to address their growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. That initiative became the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known by its original name of Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires the State to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987.

Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By providing this information, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from exposure to these chemicals. Proposition 65 also prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) administers the Proposition 65 program. OEHHA, which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), also evaluates all currently available scientific information on substances considered for placement on the Proposition 65 list. 
http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html

Kayla W. September 24, 2015 at 2:37 pm - Reply

I’m having trouble finding polite language with which to express my opinion here.  The legislative intent of Section 120335(h) was crystal clear — it was to ensure that SB277 did NOT interfere with FAPE for unvaccinated or partially vaccinated children who qualify for an IEP.  I pity the family that has to take this issue to court, but I would love to be the judge who got this case.  LIne those Orange County Dept. of Educ. Legal Division attorneys up at the front of the courtroom and publicly whop ’em all upside the head for this insulting, impudent, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious misinterpretation of a point of law where the legislative intent was absolutely clear and indisputable.  Yeah.  That would give me some satisfaction.

Kameron Krause September 24, 2015 at 11:24 am - Reply

I cannot believe that people aren’t more up in arms about this. This country and especially the state of California is turning into Nazi Germany. Under the premise of the greater good, just like the Nazis claimed they were doing experimenting on people against their will for. You never take away someones rights for another ones. Who decides which person is more valuable. Its outrageous. And since when is it a law that every American citizen is required to practice the mainstream type.  medicine from MDs. I thought this country was founded on the personal rights and freedoms that our founding fathers didn’t have under tyrannical governments in Europe. Havent we as the human race learned nothing from giving government too much power. That’s it leads to evil and genocide and a civilization of slaves not freedom. Wake up everyone. f they can get away with this anything goes.