Comments by Health Impact News Editor

California’s controversial new vaccination law, SB277 which is scheduled to go into effect this month (July 2016), has been challenged in court. SB277 became the first law in the United States to remove the philosophical and religious exemption for childhood vaccines, thereby completely removing parental choice in any decisions about vaccinating their children as a requirement for attending school. Only two other states do not have philosophical or religious exemptions (and apparently never did), Mississippi and West Virginia.

Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen of the BolenReport reported on the new lawsuit filed in California, where parents and non-profit organizations are suing the State of California Department of Health, Department of Education, three school districts, and one County Public Health Department.

The Lawsuit Against SB 277 Has Been Filed

by Tim Bolen

Excerpts:

The case I talked about two days ago has been electronically filed by Carl Lewis in the San Diego Federal Court.  I have attached copies of each of the individual document sets to this article.

The actual name of the filing is “Complaint For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Temporary Restraining Order Sought.”

What, exactly is that?  It is simple…

(1)  The Plaintiffs are asking the Court, in this case, to temporarily stop the enforcement of SB 277 until the issues brought to the Court, in the Motion, are finally decided, and then,

(2) on the findings, issue a Permanent Injunction against SB 277.

The Case Outline

(1)  There are TEN Plaintiffs. four non-profit organization, and six individuals.

(2)  There are TEN Defendant groups– which include the State of California Department of Health, Department of Education, three Schools Districts, and one County Public Health Department (Santa Barbara), and their employees, some named individually, and others in a group.

(3)  There are, SIX Counts (Causes of Action) – (a)  Infringement on Rights protected by the California Constitution, (b)  Infringement on Rights protected by the US Constitution, (c)  Violation of Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), (d)  Violation of California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and (e)  Violation of California Information Practices Act, and Violation of California Health and Safety Code 120440.

  The Relief Requested has FIVE parts –

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court grant judgment for Plaintiffs and:

(1)  Declare unconstitutional and set aside SB 277 and its regulatory scheme;

(2)  Grant temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the unconstitutional ban on personal belief and religious objections and the restriction of medical choice exemptions;

(3)  Grant temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief immediately prohibiting the denial of school admission to the children of the individual Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated.

(4)  Award to Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and costs incurred in connection with this action; and

(5)  Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiffs

There are six individual Plaintiffs and four non-profit Plaintiffs:

The individuals:

(1)  Plaintiff Ana Whitlow resides with her husband, family and minor sons B.A.W. and D.M.F-W., in the city of San Diego, located in San Diego County. Plaintiff Ana Whitlow and her husband have chosen to selectively vaccinate B.A.W. and D.M.F-W. to avoid vaccines that offend their religious beliefs by virtue of certain ingredients, and in the interest of B.A.W’s and D.M.F-W’s health and wellbeing.  Plaintiff Ana Whitlow’s son D.M.F-W. shows sufficient antibody levels to be deemed “proof of immunity” to the diseases for which he has not received all required vaccine doses.  Plaintiff Ana Whitlow seeks injunctive relief requiring the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California to admit B.A.W. into kindergarten at the defendant Ocean Beach Elementary School, operated by the defendant San Diego Unified School District.  Plaintiff Ana Whitlow seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of D.M.F-W into the defendant Correa Middle School, operated by the San Diego Unified School District. (Decl. of Ana Whitlock, pp. 1-6)

(2)  Plaintiff Erik Nicolaisen lives with his wife, family and minor son A.W.N. in Studio City, Los Angeles County, California. Erik Nicolaisen in concert with A.W.N’s mother has chosen to selectively vaccinate A.W.N. in the interest of A.W.N’s health and wellbeing, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying A.W.N. into the Carpenter Elementary School, operated by the Los Angeles Unified School District. (Decl. of Erik Nicolaisen, pp. 1-5)

(3)  Plaintiff Dene Schultze-Alva resides with her husband, family and minor daughter S.M.A. in Sierra Madre, California, in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff Dene Schultze-Alva has chosen to selectively vaccinate S.M.A. according to the guidance of her religion and in the interest of S.M.A’s health and wellbeing, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of S.M.A. into the preschool facility known as the Early Childhood Development Center located in Altedena California, operated by the Pasadena Unified School District. (Decl. of Dr. Dene Schultze-Alva, pp. 1-6)

(4)  Plaintiff Nicole Andrade resides in Placer County, near Loomis, California, with her husband and family, including her minor daughter I.G.A., who is ready to enter the seventh grade. Plaintiff Nicole Andrade is religiously opposed to vaccines manufactured from aborted fetal cell lines, having fully vaccinated her oldest child before she became aware that Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine is manufactured using an aborted fetal cell line.  Plaintiff Nicole Andrade has taken up in her prayers the question of whether to vaccinate, and believes that God would want her pro-life family to wait for more pure and safe vaccines, before vaccinating I.G.A. again.  Plaintiff Nicole Andrade has chosen to selectively vaccinate S.M.A. according to the guidance of her religion and in the interest of S.M.A’s health and wellbeing and seeks an order prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of I.G.A. into Franklin Elementary School, operated by the Loomis Union School District. (Decl. of Nicole Andrade, pp. 1-6)

(5)  Plaintiff Brianna Owens resides in Petrolia, Humboldt County, California. She is the parent of four children, two of whom are impacted by SB 277 and its ban from education of children who are not fully vaccinated. She has been hesitant to vaccinate her children because of a family history of autoimmune disease and her own reaction to the Tdap vaccine when she was 26 years old. Her daughter received the Tdap vaccine and had a reaction similar to her own, but less severe. Her pediatrician told her that she could not get a medical exemption for her children because he had received a “special class” where he was told that to qualify for a medical exemption her children would have to have a “documented anaphylactic reaction” to a particular vaccine and then only for that particular vaccine. She seeks an order prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children into school under SB 277. (Decl. of Brianna Owens, pp. 1-5)

(6)  Plaintiff Veronica Delgado is the parent of seven children, one of whom, A.N.D., has been selectively vaccinated and is about to enter 7^th A.N.D. had a PBE prior to the effective date of SB 277 but is now being told he cannot return to school unless his vaccinations are “caught up.” He also has an IEP, but she has been told by the school that it does not entitle him to an exemption. Next year she will have a second child, who also has an IEP that she believes is a consequence of a vaccine reaction, ready to enter 7^th grade who will encounter the same problem. She seeks an order prohibiting the defendant state actors and agencies of the State of California from denying admission of her children into school under SB 277. (Decl. of Veronica Delgado, pp. 1-4)

The non-profits –

(1)  Plaintiff E4A Foundation is a non-profit organization under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place of business in California, whose purpose is to promote and protect equal access to public and private education.

(2)  Plaintiff Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax exempt nutrition education foundation whose members follow healthy natural approaches to health and healing. It has 39 local chapters and 1,836 members in California, many of whom are families with young children who would avail themselves, or may have in the past received, a personal belief exemption.

(3)  Plaintiff Citizens for Health is a nonprofit, 501(c)(4) advocacy organization providing information about natural healing and laws affecting health to approximately 30,000 Californians.

(4)  Plaintiff Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) is a Georgia-based nonprofit corporation founded in 1992.  The ANH-USA mission is to protect access to natural health options and a toxin free lifestyle, including the ability to decline vaccination or modify the vaccine schedule for one’s children. The ANH -USA consists of over 500,000 members, including 78,000 California residents, many of whom will be harmed by SB 277 because they will not be able to make their own decisions for their school age children based on their beliefs about vaccine-related harms.

Read the full article at The BolenReport.

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.