CALIFORNIA BILL AB 2109 - URGENT

[Bayareamom]

California Pediatrician Legislator Pushing Bill to Make Parents  Pay For a Dr. Appointment to TRY to Obtain a Personal Belief Exemption Contact California Legislators NOW to Oppose AB2109 Dear California NVIC Advocacy Team Members, Your rights to make informed independent vaccination choices for your family are under attack by forced vaccination proponents in California who want to profit from restricting your independent access to a personal belief exemption to mandatory vaccination.  We need your timely help to contact California legislators to oppose Assembly Bill 2109. AB2109, introduced by Assembly Member Richard Pan, who himself is a pediatrician, would impose these additional costly and time consuming burdens on parents wanting to use a personal belief exemption to: 1)    pay for an expensive appointment at a medical doctor’s office to be given vaccine risk and benefit information that is already available online for free; and 2)    jump through the bureaucratic hoops of obtaining yet additional new forms provided by the Department of Public Health which state that the health care practitioner has provided risk and benefit information to the parent; and 3)    find a health care provider actually willing to take the appointment and then sign the new forms within 6th months of starting school for the exemption to be valid.   This raises many questions legislators need to answer including: ·         How will the state pay for all these extra required office visits for families on public assistance and for the kids of state employees who have their health coverage provided by the state? ·         What happens to a parent who can’t find a provider willing to make these types of appointments and then sign the form?  ·         What will stop doctors from using this law to deny access to philosophical exemptions? It is already hard enough for families to find providers who are willing to just treat children in their practice at all when they deviate from the required vaccination schedule.  The bill has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Health.  Text of the bill can be found here:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2109_bill_20120223_introduced.html.We will let you know as soon as we know the hearing date.  In the meantime, we need you to take the following actions to help oppose this bill: 1) Contact members of the Assembly Committee on Health and ask them to oppose AB 2109 (suggested phone call outline below). Assembly Member Phone and Fax Link to Contact Form William Monning (D) -  Chair Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member William W. Monning Dan Logue (R) - Vice Chair (P) 916-319-2003 (F) 916-319-2103 Contact Assemblyman Dan Logue Tom Ammiano (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member Tom Ammiano Toni Atkins (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member Toni Atkins Susan Bonilla (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla Mike Eng (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member Mike Eng Martin Garrick (R) (P) 916-319-2074 (F) 916-319-2174 Contact Assemblyman Martin Garrick Richard .S Gordon (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assemblyman Richard S. Gordon Mary Hayashi (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member Mary Hayashi Roger Hernandez (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Assistant Majority Whip Roger Hernández Bonnie Lowenthal (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal Allan R. Mansoor (R) (P) [phone] (F) [phone] Contact Assemblyman Allan R. Mansoor Holly J. Mitchell (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member Holly J. Mitchell Brian Nestande (R) (P) 916-319-2064 (F) 916-319-2164 Contact Assembly Member Brian Nestande Richard Pan (D) – sponsor Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member Richard Pan V. Manuel Perez (D) Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member V. Manuel Peréz Jim Silva (R) (P) 916-319-2067 (F) 916-319-2167 Contact Assembly Member Jim Silva Cameron Smyth (R)   (P) 916-319-2038 (F) 916-319-2138 Contact Assembly Member Cameron Smyth Das Williams Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact Assembly Member Das Williams Additional contact information for district offices is available by clicking on the assembly members name here - http://ahea.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff Emails are listed as [e-mail] , however most assembly members prefer to be contacted via the online contact form linked in the table above. 2) Contact your state senator and state assembly member and ask them to oppose AB2109.   If you log in to the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org and view this alert on the California state page, we will automatically lookup who your legislators are and display them to the right of this alert. You can click on their names to open up their contact information.  This free confidential service requires your registration and login in order for us to be able to calculate who you legislators are. 3) Let us know if you can help with the hearings by contacting NVIC CA State Directors, Dawn Winkler or Michelle Gutierrez, at [e-mail] or call Dawn Winkler at [phone] if you a) are willing to attend the committee hearings and/or testify against the bill; or b) have a family member who has suffered an adverse reaction to a pertussis containing vaccine and are willing to provide written or oral testimony against the bill while describing that reaction; or c) you have been thrown out of your doctor’s office for delaying or declining a vaccine and are willing to share your story with legislators; or d) you are a health care provider who is willing to provide testimony against the bill. 4) Send this to as many friends and family in California that you can and ask them to please register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org so they can get added to this state email list and receive updates how they can help fight this bill during this session.  TO LIKE AND SHARE THIS ALERT ON FACEBOOK, link tohttp://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Resources/CAOPPOSEAB2109RestrictingVaccineExemptions.aspx and click on “like” or “send” by the Facebook tag on the top of the page. Sample Phone Plan: ·         Call the office number and introduce yourself and ask to talk to someone about AB 2109. If this is your assembly member’s office, let them know you are a constituent and what town/city you are from.    ·         Let the appropriate person know you are opposed to AB 2109 because it requires you to have to pay for an extra medical office visit you don’t want or need, it requires additional bureaucratic paperwork, and as a parent if this passes, you have no guarantee you will be able to find a provider who will take these appointments or sign the form. (If you’ve ever been harassed by a doctor before or denied care, this is a great place to talk about this).   ·         Let the legislative office know that this bill wastes your time and money because you are already well educated on vaccine risks and benefits (explain the steps you have taken to educate yourself above and beyond any handout could provide). ·         Let them know about your personal story what got you involved in this issue and why an unrestricted personal belief exemption is important to your family especially if anyone in your family has had a vaccine reaction.   Additional Talking Points Against AB 2109 to be used in your written letters/email: ·         Forcing parents into a paid contractual relationship with a health care provider they wouldn’t otherwise utilize for their children’s health care is not only a violation of basic parental rights, it creates distrust and resentment towards public health programs run by the state.    ·         Especially in California, many families utilize health care providers not reliant on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and only practitioners part of the pharmaceutical paradigm or medicine are allowed to provide the information and sign the form under this bill.   ·         AB 2109 discriminates against families utilizing complementary and alternative medicine by forcing them into paying money to a medical practitioner they wouldn’t otherwise use who is already philosophically opposed to the parent’s personal and religious convictions regarding vaccination.   ·         Parents who utilize vaccine exemptions are typically  more educated regarding the risks and benefits of vaccination than both the parents who choose vaccination and aren’t required by this bill to receive this information and the health care providers who would be required to sign the exemption in order for it to be valid.   ·         Many doctors’ offices throw families out of their practice for delaying or declining a vaccine.  There is nothing in this bill to prevent a doctor’s office from refusing to take these appointments to begin with or for refusing to sign the form once a family pays for a visit.  These real obstacles will restrict or deny access to the personal beliefs exemption for some families currently using it.     ·         The state is not in the financial position to pay for all these extra required office visits within 6 months of school starting for families on public assistance and for the kids of state employees who have their health coverage provided by the state and who want to delay or a decline one or more vaccines.   ·         The information required by this bill is already available to parents online for free and coercive measures like this bill do nothing but create and further distrust and resentment towards public health programs run by the state.   ·         There is NO current crisis that would indicate that CA needs to make it more difficult to obtain exemptions from vaccination.    ·         Most vaccination rates in CA for children 19 to 35 months old for individual vaccines are at or above the CDC Healthy People 2020 goal of 90%. (http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/nis/nis_iap2.asp?fmt=v&rpt=tab03_antigen_state&qtr=Q1/2009-Q4/2009)   ·         Vaccination rates for children entering kindergarten in California have increased from 2010 to 2011 and are at or above the CDC Healthy People 2020 goals of 90%, except for one category, which is at 89.4%. (http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2011SelectiveReviewResults.pdf)     ·         Bill Sponsor Assembly Member Dr. Richard Pan, claims in a press release that his bill will help prevent outbreaks of pertussis. It is important for legislators to understand that the pertussis outbreaks in CA are due to waning immunity of the vaccine, and not because of families taking the exemption.  Here are some references to back this point.     o   "The rise in pertussis doesn’t seem to be related to parents’ refusing to have their children vaccinated for fear of potential side effects. In California, pertussis rates are about the same in counties with high childhood vaccination rates and low ones. And the C.D.C. reports that pertussis immunization rates have been stable or increasing since 1992."(http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/vaccination-is-steady-but-pertussis-is-surging/ )   o   Children can be susceptible to pertussis even if they are completely vaccinated. (http://www.inewsource.org/2011/03/28/experts-zero-in-on-waning-immunity/ )   o   The acellular pertussis vaccine’s failure to deliver durable infection protection to children aged 7-10 years led to the 2010 California pertussis epidemic. (http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/news/conference-news/infectious-diseases-society-of-america-conference/single-article/acellular-pertussis-vaccine-s-waning-immunity-caused-california-epidemic/71de9826f4.html)     o   The pertussis vaccine has been found to wane after only 3 years, leaving a much larger population of fully vaccinated children susceptible to pertusssis than unvaccinated children.  KPBS and the Watchdog Institute performed a joint investigation into the recent increasing pertussis rates in California and found the majority of cases of pertussis were occurring in fully vaccinated populations of children in the 8-12 year old age group.  They went on to show that the vaccine wanes after only 3 years.   (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/sep/20/whooping-cough-vaccine-wanes-after-three-years/)   ·         Bill supporters claim that vaccines are safe.   The reality is there is real risk.  The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established by Congress in 1986 to protect vaccine manufacturers and doctors from liability for vaccine injuries and death. As of Jan. 3, 2012, there have been 14,073 claims filed for vaccine injury and 1077 death claims.  The total dollar amount of vaccine injury and death awards granted and paid to families of vaccine victims by our government is $2,366,649,931.96. (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#Claims)   ·         Just for pertussis containing vaccines alone administered in the state of California,  11,516 reports of Vaccine Adverse Events have been filed with the federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System where 77% of the reports of adverse events are for children 6 and under.  There have been 5,775 disorders of the nervous system reported and 172 deaths.  96% of the deaths reported were in children three and under.  (http://www.medalerts.org/)    Sincerely, Dawn Richardson, Director of Advocacy National Vaccine Information Center http://NVIC.org and http://NVICAdvocacy.org [e-mail] The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) works diligently to prepare and disseminate our legislative advocacy action alerts and supporting materials.  We request that organizations and members of the public forward our alerts in their original form to assure consistent and accurate messaging and effective action. Please acknowledge NVIC as originators of this work when forwarding to members of the public and like-minded organizations. To receive alerts immediately, register  at http://NVICAdvocacy.org, a website dedicated to this sole purpose and provided as a free public service by NVIC.

Make A Difference, support NVIC. NVIC is a certified 501(c)3 Charity.

[Taximom5]

Can you post a separate link to this?  My computer only shows the left-hand half of what you posted, so I can't tell what it's all about.  I went to NVIC.org and couldn't find any info there, either.

[Taximom5]

Ah--I did find this:  http://www.naturalnews.com/035212_AB_2109_vaccine_exemptions_California.html

[Bayareamom]

Hi Taximom,

The information is over at the National Vaccine Information Center's Advocacy Portal.  Scroll at the top of the NVIC website, and look under LAW AND POLICY.  When you register with the Advocacy Portal, you will be able to view the entire text of AB 2109.  

Sorry about the above post - I couldn't find a way to fix the margins on this computer.  

WARNING TO ALL CALIFORNIA PARENTS RE: AB2109:  I have received word that this Bill will also seek to require homeschooled children be included under this new mandate, should it be chaptered into law.  So for those of you who homeschool, you're not off the hook!  GET THOSE PHONE CALLS PLACED AND/OR FAX YOUR REPRESENTATIVES listed above.  Additionally, if you are in Sacramento (or close by), please consider going down to the Capitol on April 17th for this Bill's hearing.  

-Kim

[Bayareamom]

TEXT of CALIFORNIA BILL AB2109:

In bill text the following have special meaning: 

green underline denotes added text

dark red struck out text denotes deleted text

red text denotes vetoed text

The symbol,  , indicates a link to an affected code section

2011 CA A 2109 AUTHOR: Pan VERSION: Introduced VERSION DATE: 02/23/2012

BILL NUMBER: AB 2109 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Pan

(Principal coauthor: Senator Wolk)

(Coauthor: Assembly Member Fuentes)

FEBRUARY 23, 2012

An act to amend Section 120365  of the Health and Safety Code, relating to communicable disease.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 2109, as introduced, Pan. Communicable disease: immunization exemption.

Existing law prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless prior to his or her first admission to that institution he or she has been fully immunized against various diseases, as specified. Existing law prohibits admission or advancement of a pupil to the 7th grade level without a full immunization against hepatitis B.

Existing law exempts a person from the above-described immunization requirement if the parent or guardian or other specified persons file with the governing authority a letter or affidavit stating that the immunization is contrary to his or her beliefs. However, whenever there is good cause to believe that the person has been exposed to one of the diseases, a person may be temporarily excluded from the school or institution, as specified.

This bill would require, on and after July 1, 2013, the above-described letter or affidavit to be accompanied by a form prescribed by the State Department of Public Health that includes a written statement signed by a health care practitioner, as defined, that indicates that the health care practitioner provided the parent or guardian of the person, or the person, if an emancipated minor, who is subject to the immunization requirements with information regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health risks of specified communicable diseases. The bill would also require the form to include a written statement by the parent, guardian, or person, if an emancipated minor, that indicates that he or she received the information from the health care practitioner.

By imposing new duties upon local officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 120365  of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

120365. (a) Immunization of a person shall not be required for admission to a school or other institution listed in Section 120335 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 stating that the immunization is contrary to his or her beliefs. However, whenever there

(b) On and after July 1, 2013, a separate form prescribed by the State Department of Public Health shall accompany the letter or affidavit filed pursuant to subdivision (a). The form shall include both of the following:

(1) A written statement signed by a health care practitioner that indicates that the health care practitioner provided the parent or guardian of the person, or the person if an emancipated minor, who is subject to the immunization requirements of this chapter with information regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health risks of the communicable diseases listed in Section 120335 to the person and to the community. This statement shall be signed not more than six months from the date when the person subject to the immunization requirements is first admitted to the school. If the person was admitted to the school prior to entering the 7th grade and is about to enter the 7th grade, then an additional letter or affidavit shall be filed with the written statement signed by the health care practitioner not more than six months from the first day of school for a person about to enter the 7th grade.

(2) A written statement signed by the parent or guardian of the person, or the person if an emancipated minor, who is subject to the immunization requirements of this chapter that indicates that the signor has received the information provided by the health care practitioner described in paragraph (1). This statement shall be signed not more than six months from the date when the person subject to the immunization requirements is first admitted to the school. If the person was admitted to the school prior to entering the 7th grade and is about to enter the 7th grade, then an additional letter or affidavit shall be filed with the written statement signed by the parent not more than six months from the first day of school for a person about to enter the 7th grade.

(b)

(c ) When there is good cause to believe that the person has been exposed to one of the communicable diseases listed in subdivision (a) of Section 120325, that person may be temporarily excluded from the school or institution until the local health officer is satisfied that the person is no longer at risk of developing the disease.

(d) A copy of the signed written statement shall be accepted in lieu of the original form. A signed letter from the health care practitioner that references the person's name shall be accepted in lieu of a statement on the original form.

(e) For purposes of this section, "health care practitioner" means a physician and surgeon, licensed pursuant to Section 2050 of the Business and Professions Code, a nurse practitioner who is authorized to furnish drugs pursuant to Section 2836.1 of the Business and Professions Code, or a physician assistant who is authorized to administer or provide medication pursuant to Section 3502.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

Copyright 2012 State Net. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

 

 

[Bayareamom]

For those of you in California - this bill WILL impact home schooled children as well; home schooled children WILL be required to have their exemptions signed off by either an allopathic physician OR a nurse.  

NOTE:  California has NEVER had a separate religious exemption on its books.  If any of you reading this thread, feel you may be able to skirt around AB 2109 by using a separate religious exemption, you are misinformed.  The ONLY two exemptions California has ever had, are the medical and the philosophical exemption.  Dr. Bob Sears has warned that most physicians will NOT want to sign off on your exemption (liability issues being one of the reasons).  

This bill is really a sneaky way to effectively take away your right to use our exemption.  It'll still be on the books, but they'll make it incredibly difficult for you to use it.

[Nosy]

Bumping because this is an important bill.  I'm really nervous about the hearing Tuesday and what it will mean for vaccine freedom in America.

[Taximom5]

How did the hearing go?

[ma2two]

It passed today's vote, then was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, which will address possible funding needs related to the bill. After that, it will be voted on again. 

So it is not law yet. There's still hope, I think.

Bill Status

 

Measure:

AB-2109

 

Lead Authors:

Pan (A)

 

Principal Coauthors:

Wolk (S)

 

Coauthors:

Fuentes (A)

 

Topic:

Communicable disease: immunization exemption.

 

31st Day in Print:

03/25/12

 

Title:

An act to amend Section 120365 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to communicable disease.

 

House Location:

Assembly

 

Introduced Date:

02/23/12

 

 

Committee Location:

Asm Health

 

 

 

 

Committee Action Date:

04/17/12

 

Committee Motion:

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

 

Committee Vote Result:

(PASS) »» Ayes: 13; Noes: 5; Abstain: 1;

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml

[Taximom5]

Oh, that sucks.  I am so sorry.

I read that Dr. Sears spoke out against it.

[Bayareamom]

You can view the entire hearing's event on the 17th, over on Youtube.  Just type in CA Bill AB2109 hearing - you should be able to pull it up.  Sorry - I don't have that link off-hand.  It was apparent that Chairman Monning's mind had already been made up - or shall I say bought and paid for, even after hundreds of people showed up, in opposition to this bill.  Additionally, what do you know.  The AAP just happened to have its convention/seminar held ON THE SAME DAY THIS HEARING WAS HELD, so of course, some 150 young med students showed up, all in their white coats, and lined up and all stated their names and that they would all be happy to sign off on these exemptions.

It was a well played charade.  

Big Pharma lobbyists at their best.

[thtr4me]

Wish I had the fund's to "buy" Chairman Monning a new position ;).

[marlne]

Dang, I wonder how long before this could be put in action if it were to go all the way through.  We're moving to California this fall and will be there for 4yrs. 

[thegoodearth]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this bill seems very similar to a bill that was just passed in Washington state. I don't live in California but I would really hate to see it pass there too. Especially since I can see a domino effect happening in other states as a result.  

[eireann]

This is now a story on CNN's front page. 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/health/california-vaccination-opt-out/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

I am in CA. I just found out about this, and plan to write and call like there is no tomorrow. What an absolute crock and robbing of liberties. 

[prosciencemum]

Obviously I'm coming to this from a different point of view to most posts in this thread, but I am curious why it's such a problem. All you have to do if it is passed is go to a Doctor and discuss with them your reasons for not vaccinating. If you're confident in your decision that couldn't change anything, and if you don't trust your Doctor enough to have that conversation then I would suggest you change Doctors. 

I do worry a bit about the impact on the poorer parts of the community. I know vaccines are offered free, but this exemption consultation I am guessing may not be free. But that perhaps boils down to my deeper concerns over a "for profit" medical system like that in the USA. I hope some Doctors will offer these consulations pro bona - perhaps Dr. Sears, or other advocates of delayed vaccination will do that....? 

[Rrrrrachel]

I have concerns about people who have done zero research and decide not to vaccinate because they've "heard a lot of things" and it seems like better safe than sorry.  This would cut back on that, while still letting people who are informed and decide not to vaccinate have that option.  Seems like a good thing, to me.

[eireann]

It's a problem because I don't need to be counseled on how to raise my children - not from my doctor, a family member, a priest, or anyone. Period. 

If this passes, it could be a sign of more radical and invasive things to come. 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by eireann 

It's a problem because I don't need to be counseled on how to raise my children - not from my doctor, a family member, a priest, or anyone. Period. 

If this passes, it could be a sign of more radical and invasive things to come. 

 I see how it would be considered problematic in that light. 

 My point of view is that I like to take the advice of experts, but as advice. I would seek legal advice if needed, and I definitely took financial advice when we recently bought a house. So I don't really see the difference here. As Rrrachel says, this will not be a significant barrier to those of you who have researched and decided against having your children vaccinated, but will make people who have not spent the time stop and think about the choice. 

 The point with counselling/advice surely is that you don't have to agree with it, just listen to it and then do what you think is right. 

[pammysue]

The problem is that if this bill passes it will take away my right as a parent to make this decision for my family. It is not the state's place to legislate medical decisions. I have an amazing one of a kind dr who will sign a waiver without blinking but most won't. I am concerned about low income families who have no choice but to use state funded programs for their children's health care. Will this take away their rights completely?