Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Defend California Vaccine Exemptions - Oppose AB 2109

NVIC Public Service Announcement to Oppose California AB 2109 - Communicable Disease: Immunization Exemption, which changes vaccine exemption laws in California to be more restrictive.

If You Vaccinate, 1st ask 8 questions

Unconstitutional Vaccine Law AB2109 Passes the CA State Assembly Health Committee-4 of 7

If AB2109 makes it through to Governor Brown's desk, chances are he will sign it as he did AB499. This would be another huge blow to the rights of California's parents. We need to fight this, it's not over yet.
It is unconstitutional to force a citizen to pay money to secure their Constitutional rights.
Questions have been raised re happenings at the hearing. Many have said that the media stopped filming & left directly after the medical establishment had their say in support of the bill, leaving the opposition with no media voice. Also, it is highly coincidental that the American Association of Pediatricians was holding a conference at the exact same time & place, giving Dr. Pan a ready made Que of supporters. This made it seem like these doctors flew in from across the state just to support this bill.

Will AB2109 be yet another state mandated extortion bill, or will individual liberties guarenteed in the Constitution win out?

-Why This Is Important-
From Holly Kobolt Blumhardt, who created the petition -The CA State House: OPPOSE AB2109- (see link below)

- AB2109 violates California parental rights to exercise a philosophical exemption given under California law.

- This violates Californians constitutional rights because parents are being forced to get PERMISSION to opt out of a voluntary medical procedure.

- This bill forces parents to utilize an allopathic model of healthcare for their child in cases that they may opt for a more natural approach, such as homeopathic, acupuncture, chiropractic, Chinese Medicine, etc.

- Pediatricians won't want to sign off on the exemption form because they won't meet their quotas for vaccinated children and bonuses.

- Pediatricians won't want to sign off on the form because they will get reduced reimbursement rates from the insurance companies due to vaccination requirements.

- Pediatricians won't want to sign off on the form because of liability concerns.

- Insurance companies will not pay for the office visits to sign off on these forms.

- California parents will have to pay out of pocket for this additional office visit.

- California parents will most likely have to shop around to several different pediatricians to get a signature, requiring more money and lots of counseling sessions, as well as coercion that they shouldn't be subjected to for exercising a right.

- Many parents that utilize the philosophical exemption have done extensive research in this area and-or have a personal-religious belief against taking them and are acting in the best interest of their child.

- If parents can't get a signature on the form, their child won't be able to go to school without getting vaccinated.

- There is no way that all of the pros and cons of vaccines can be discussed in one short visit to a pediatrician.

- You don't need a doctor's signature to prove a patient has been educated.

- If this bill is passed, it will set precedence for many other states and could eventually end the philosophical exemption across the board.

- This bill could also set precedence regarding freedom to make other health care decisions as individuals and parents.-

Ed Nemeth, candidate for the 9th District Assembly, gives his take on AB2109:

-Let's view the fundamental problem of Dr Pan's AB2109. It fails the Supreme Court's First Amendment Lemon Test.

America's freedoms are based on the most fundamental Civil Liberty that government -shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or, prohibiting the free exercise thereof;-

The Supreme Court's Lemon Test requires that, to have validity, legislature must have 1) a secular purpose for adopting an enactment; 2) the primary effect of that law must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and 3) the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

AB2109 clearly fails Lemon Test requirements #2 and #3 by mandating biased Third Parties to subjectively approve the validity of private religious objections (#2) and specifically entangles government directly in accessing the private and personal religious beliefs of these parents (#3).

Simplifying the Lemon Test lets us remember that Federal Courts assert that:

-No citizen can be required to offer -good and substantial reason- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right's existence is all the reason he needs.--

Please check back for further information!

Link to bill information:

-AB-2109 Communicable disease: immunization exemption-­109&search_keywords=

No comments: