Only One Day (Sep. 30) Remains for Gov. Brown to Veto AB499
Only Parents Should Decide What Vaccines Their 12 Year Olds Receive
[Editor's Note: I can't tell you how incensed I would be if I had school-age children while living in California. How dare these NWO sell-outs in the California House and Senate vote in favor of this pro-vaccine, parents-be-damned wet dream. Ultra Leftist Govenor Jerry Brown will probably not sign the bill, but rather do nothing and the bill will automatically become law in 30 days (which will likely occur on Oct. 1, 2011. There's a very small chance Brown would veto the bill if his office were flooded with a tsunami of angry phone calls and faxes demanding that he veto the bill, but Brown is at the end of his political career. I think it's safe to assume that he'll sell out 110% over the rights of parents in order to meet the demands of his NWO overlords in Big Pharma. If the bill becomes law, the next thing to do is line up a legal front and launch lawsuits arguing the constitutional abridgements of parents rights. Otherwise, parents need to MOVE OUT OF CALIFORNIA and go to Arizona, or Utah, or Idaho, or SOME state where the slime-bucket, sell-out whores in the legislature haven't COMPLETELY abandoned them to the NWO takeove agenda. Please note the names of the 22 California Senate Democrat WHORES who sold out the 37 million residents of California to the financial interest of Merck Pharmaceuticals..Ken Adachi ]
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 31, 2011
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY MAY 12, 2011
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Atkins
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Ma)
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
An act to amend Section 6926 of the Family Code, relating to
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 499, Atkins. Minors: medical care: consent.
Existing law allows minors to consent to specified forms of
medical or dental treatment.
This bill would, in addition, allow a minor who is 12 years of age
or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a
sexually transmitted disease.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 6926 of the Family Code is amended to read:
(a) A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may
have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or
communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the
diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease or condition is
one that is required by law or regulation adopted pursuant to law to
be reported to the local health officer, or is a related sexually
transmitted disease, as may be determined by the State Public Health
(b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical
care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.
(c) The minor's parents or guardian are not liable for payment for
medical care provided pursuant to this section.
How California Senators Voted on AB 499
AB 499, the bill that enables 12 year olds to consent to vaccinations for certain STDs, passed the California Senate by a vote of 22-17 on August 31, 2011.
Voting in Favor of AB 499: 22 Democrats
Voting Against: 2 Democrats and 15 Republicans (17 against)
Voting YES on AB 499:
Noreen Evans (Dem, Dist. 02)
Mark Leno (Dem, Dist. 03)
Lois Wolk (Dem, Dist. 05)
Darrell Steinberg (Dem, Dist. 06)
Mark DeSaulnier (Dem, Dist. 07)
Leland Y. Yee (Dem, Dist. 08)
Loni Hancock (Dem, Dist. 09)
Ellen Corbett (Dem, Dist. 10)
S. Joseph Simitian (Dem, Dist. 11)
Elaine Alquist (Dem, Dist. 13)
Alex Padilla (Dem, Dist. 20)
Carol Liu (Dem, Dist. 21)
Kevin de Leon (Dem, Dist. 22)
Fran Pavley (Dem, Dist. 23)
Ed Hernandez O.D. (Dem, Dist. 24)
Roderick D. Wright (Dem, Dist. 25)
Curren D. Price, Jr. (Dem, Dist. 26)
Alan Lowenthal (Dem, Dist. 27)
Ted Lieu (Dem, Dist. 28)
Ron Calderson (Dem, Dist. 30)
Christine Kehoe (Dem, Dist. 39)
Juan Vargas (Dem, Dist. 40)
PLEASE TAKE ACTION
1) IMMEDIATELY FORWARD THIS ALERT to everyone you know, especially organizations who can reach large numbers of families.
Our entire country needs to come together and send the state government of California the strong message: KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR KIDS! If we let this stand in California, count on this coming to your state next.
VETO AB499 Governor Brown Children should not be vaccinated for any reason
without the voluntary, informed consent of their parents.
In California, there is legislation awaiting Governor Jerry Brown’s signature, AB499, that
will allow minor children to receive vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, such as HPV
(Gardasil) and hepatitis B, without the informed consent of their parents. xxix If this
legislation becomes law:
The non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), founded in 1982, is a pro-education, pro-informed consent consumer advocacy organization that secured vaccine safety and informed consent provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. i NVIC
opposes state and federal legislation that allows medical or school personnel to vaccinate minor
children for any reason without the voluntary, informed consent ii of their parents.
This is a fundamental product safety and informed consent issue. The legal right of
parents to give their informed consent for minor children to take medical risks, iii which can result
in injury or death, trumps the goals of state agencies or vaccine corporations iv and medical organizations, v vi whose employees, stockholders or members profit or professionally benefit from increased, widespread vaccine use.
Unlike medical, school or other personnel administering vaccines, parents are legally
accountable and financially responsible for the health care and education of a minor child
when that child experiences a vaccine reaction and becomes chronically ill or disabled.
Existing and future vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, such as HPV, hepatitis B, herpes,
vii gonorrhea, viii chlamydia ix and HIV/AIDS, x should not be placed in a special category to allow
legally unaccountable individuals to persuade a minor child to get vaccinated without the
knowledge or consent of the parent.
Product Safety & Liability:
* Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury or death, which
can be greater for some than others; xi
* The Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded in a 2011 report that scientific
evidence is inadequate to determine whether HPV vaccine can or cannot
cause different kinds of serious brain and immune system dysfunction,
including brain inflammation (ADEM); chronic inflammatory polyneuropathy,
arthralgia, multiple sclerosis, Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS); ALS (Lou Gehrig’s
disease); pancreatitis and blood disorders. xii xiii As of July 2011, there have been
21,000 reports to the government of health problems following HPV (Gardasil)
vaccination, including 3,000 serious cases and 98 deaths. xiv
* The IOM also concluded that scientific evidence is inadequate to determine
whether hepatitis B vaccine can or cannot cause serious brain and immune
system dysfunction, including brain inflammation (encephalitis, ADEM) and
encephalopathy; multiple sclerosis; optic neuritis; GBS; chronic inflammatory
polyneuropathy; vasculitis; lupus; psoriatic, reactive or rheumatoid arthritis; Type
1 diabetes or fibromyalgia. xv As of July 2011, there have been more than 50,000
reports to the government of health problems following receipt of hepatitis B
containing vaccines, including more than 9,000 serious cases and 966 deaths. xvi
[The Center for Disease Control has reported deaths of 51 girls and 2 boysafter being administered Gardasil, just one of the vaccines covered by this bill. There are many more reports of children maimed for life from the drug. (See http://truthaboutgardasil.org/.) Children are not equipped to evaluate risks and stand up to pressure from adults without the support of their parents. Former Merck researcher, Dr. Diane Harper says, “It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls... There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."]
* Vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other vaccine administrators have no
legal accountability or financial liability in civil court when a government recommended or mandated vaccine(s) causes permanent injury or death; xvii xviii xix
* The U.S. federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded more than
$2 billion to vaccine victims since 1988 but two out of three vaccine injured
plaintiff’s are turned away without financial support. xx
Informed Consent & Parental Responsibility:
* Informed consent to medical risk taking is a human right xxi and is the central ethical principle in the ethical and legal practice of modern medicine; xxii xxiii xxiv
* There is scientific evidence that the physical, mental and emotional development
of children, including pre-adolescents, varies and is often not sufficient to enable
children to make well reasoned decisions about risk taking involving their health
and well being. xxv xxvi xxvii
* A substantial body of U.S. law affirms the fundamental, legal right for
parents to make medical, educational and other important welfare
decisions for their minor children; xxviii
* Parents are legally and financially responsible for the health care and education
of their children and, therefore, parents must retain the legal right to give
informed consent to vaccination of the child.
Increased Health Care and Legal Costs:
* California taxpayers will pay for state purchase of Gardasil vaccine from Merck at
$108 per dose xxx or $324 for every 12-year old child plus vaccine delivery and
* Total costs will be in the multi-millions, especially when money is spent for
state funded special education and health services for vaccine injured children,
who are without health insurance and do not receive federal vaccine injury
The state will face increased civil litigation costs when parents sue the
state for violating a long held parental legal right and responsibility xxxi to
make decisions about medical care for their minor children.
i The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
ii Kleifgen B. Informed Consent in Vaccination. Vaccine Ethics.org. July 2010
iii Parental Right to Refuse Medical Treatment in Mother Doe & Father Doe vs. Anthony Conyers,
Jr., Commissioner of VA Dept. of Social Services and Sarah C. Snead, Director of Chesterfield
Dept. of Social Services and VA Governor Mark E. Warner. Re: Liberty Interest. June 17, 2005.
iv Zimm A, Preston D. Merck Gets First U.S. Cancer Shot Mandate, From Texas. Feb. 2, 2007.
v Rothman SM, Rothman DJ. Marketing HPV Vaccine: Implications for Adolescent Health and
Medical Professionalism. JAMA 2009; 302(7): 781-786.
vi Attkisson S. How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders? CBS-TV News. July 25, 2008.
vii Valigra L. Genocea’s $35M VC round pushing herpes vaccine torward clinic.
Masshightech.com. Jan. 5, 2011
viii UroToday Promising Target Identified for Gonorrhea Vaccine. July 20, 2005.
ix Science Daily. Chlamydia Vaccine A Step Closer to Reality. Feb. 2, 2007.
x Bowdler N. Monkey HIV vaccines ‘effective,’ say researchers. BBC News. May 11, 2011
xi HRSA. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Statistics
xii Stratton K, Ford A, Rusch E, Clayton EW, editors. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and
Causality. Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. National Academies Press: 2011.
xiii National Vaccine Information Center. NVIC Statement on Adverse Effects of Vaccines:
Evidence and Causality, IOM Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Aug. 25, 2011.
xiv VAERS. MedAlerts Database.
xv See Reference #12.
xvi See Reference #14.
xvii See Reference #1.
xviii Supreme Court of the United States. Russell Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al. No. 09-152.
Argued October 12, 2010 – Decided February 22, 2011.
xix NVIC. Press Release: NVIC Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by U.S. Supreme Court Giving
Total Liability Shield to Big Pharma. Feb. 23, 2011.
xx See Reference #11.
xxi Fagan A. Human Rights. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. July 5, 2005.
xxii University of Washington School of Medicine. Ethics in Medicine: Informed Consent. Accessed
Sept. 1, 2011.
xxiii AMA. Informed Consent. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.
xxiv Supreme Court of California. Arato v. Avedon (858 P2d 598) 1993.
xxv McCabe MA. Involving Children and Adolescents in Medical Decision Making: Developmental and
Clinical Considerations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1996; 21(4): 505-516.
xxvi Oswalt A. Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development. Child Development Theory:
Adolesence. MentalHelp.net. Nov. 17, 2010.
xxvii Dartmouth College. Press Release: Brain changes significantly after age 18, says Dartmouth
research. Feb. 6, 2006.
xxviii Klicka CJ. Parental Rights: Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court Upholding Parental rights as“Fundamental.” 2003.
xxix Cochran S. CA AB499 Nixes Parental Consent for Gardasil Shots Given to Preteens. Yahoo
News. Aug. 24, 2011.
xxx CDC. Vaccine Price List – 2011.
xxxi Virginia Office of the Attorney General. Family Relationships and the Law. Accessed Sept. 1,
NVIC, 407 Church St. • Suite H • Vienna, VA 22180 • www.NVIC.org • Phone: 703-938-0342 • Fax: 703-938-5768
MEDIA ADVISORY, Sept. 16, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ -- In 2007, California parents said "no" to mandatory Gardasil vaccinations for children forcing the legislature to withdraw a bill sponsored by the pharmaceutical giant, Merck. Now, they are trying to make an "end run" with a bill permitting providers to by-pass parents and give children as young as 12 years old the power to consent to vaccinations of Gardasil without their parents' knowledge.
There are serious questions about AB 499 regarding new wasteful taxpayer expenditures, parental rights and responsibilities, and the relationship between the bill's sponsor and the pharmaceutical giant Merck.
William B. May*: Topics include:
Parallels with the issue hounding Texas Governor Rick Perry.
Attacks on parents' rights to make consequential healthcare decisions for children.
Absence of protections against coercion of children by adults with vested interests.
Wasteful expenditures of public funds because 73% of teenagers who take the first injection of Gardasil do not become immunized (1.usa.gov/oZZcOS). Fortune called this "the equivalent of a design flaw." (cnnmon.ie/bI38ZO)
Creation of the broadest 12-17 year old market possible for Merck by including inoculation of boys, although Gardasil is only on the CDC immunization schedule for girls (1.usa.gov/dnUYnR).
5.a The bill could mean up to $30 million in sales for Merck at federal expense.
5.b Why must Merck pursue legal mandates or laws to go around parents to sell their vaccine?
The bill's sponsor, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, received 60% ($477,000) of their total corporate grants from Merck in 2010 (bit.ly/p7qyHR). They received another $97,000 in the first quarter of 2011.
Medical Experts also available on request
A pediatrician, board certified in infectious diseases
"We don't need laws to permit interest groups to go directly to children because their parents have said 'no'", said Catholics for the Common Good Chairman, William B. May. "Governor Brown should apply the same parental rights principles to AB 499 that he used when he recently vetoed the mandatory sky helmet bill and send AB 499 back to the legislature with his veto."
Governor Brown's veto message for SB 105 read, "I am concerned about the continuing and seeming inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state." He concluded, "I believe parents have the ability and responsibility to make good choices for their children."
* William B. May is founder and chairman of Catholics for the Common Good a non-partisan organization working for a more just society. It is guided by the social teaching of the Catholic Church. He has appeared on Good Morning America, The News Hour, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC, FNC, CNN, NPR, EWTN Radio, To the Point with Warren Olney (NPR), KQED Forum with Michael Krasney, The Ronn Owens Program (KGO), Catholic Answers Live (EWTN), Kresta in the Afternoon (EWTN), and many other radio programs.
Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:31:17 PM by Fred
SACRAMENTO, CA, September 1, 2011--AB 499, the bill that permits 12 year old children to give consent without their parents' knowledge for vaccines or other medication to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, passed the CA Senate yesterday on a 22-17 vote. The Governor could take action on the bill any time between September 9 and October 9. Ask the governor to veto AB 499. (See how senators voted)
This bill is one of the most egregious violations of parental rights, next to the right to provide abortions for minors without parent knowledge. If it passes, parents will have no right to decide whether or not their child will receive vaccinations that could jeopardize their health. Additionally, children will be approached by Planned Parenthood and other adults encouraging them to be vaccinated to prepare them to become sexually active.
AB 499 is an outrage that must be stopped, but it will take a massive public outcry to do it.
Please ask the governor to veto AB 499 today. It is critical to get others to call as well.
This bill is an end run by the pharmaceutical giant Merck to push their vaccine, Gardasil, on California children at taxpayer's expense. A major public outcry in 2007 killed an effort to make the vaccinations mandatory when Merck proposed it then.
Now, if AB 499 becomes law, children as young as 12 years old will face coercion from adults motivated by profit or other agendas to receive vaccines that they don't need and could be harmful.
The Center for Disease Control has reported deaths of 51 girls and 2 boys after being administered Gardasil, just one of the vaccines covered by this bill. There are many more reports of children maimed for life from the drug. (See http://truthaboutgardasil.org/.) Children are not equipped to evaluate risks and stand up to pressure from adults without the support of their parents. Former Merck researcher, Dr. Diane Harper says, “It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls... There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."
It is time for parents and anyone who cares about the welfare of California’s children to mobilize," said CCG Chair William B. May. "Let’s flood the governor's office with phone calls and letters. Governor Jerry Brown to veto AB 499. It is bad healthcare policy, and an attack on the rights of parents and the rights of children to have the protection and guidance of their parents."
CA bill (AB 499) would allow 12 year olds to consent to certain vaccines without parental knowledge
There is a bill in California (AB 499) that has already passed the CA Assembly, and is scheduled for a vote in the CA Senate June 14 (this Tuesday). It would allow children as young as 12 to consent to vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, mainly HPV (Gardasil or Cervarix) but also hepatitis B, without their parents' knowledge or consent.
It would add to an existing law that already allows children starting at age 12 to consent to testing and treatment for STD's. The bill would add prevention, including vaccines to the law.
What are your thoughts on this? The purpose of the existing law was to make it possible to treat STD's in kids too afraid to tell their parents. I think vaccines for prevention is a lot different than treating an existing disease. I think there is no need for this law, and that it is dangerous and probably and unconstitutional infringement on parents' rights.
If you want to do anything about it, I'll link to my post in Activism.
Well, I'm not even in CA and I'm outraged as a parent. Does this mean they are bypassing parents' personal belief exemptions?
This is complete and utter BS and most certainly unconstitutional. No way in hell would I let them do anything to my child without my knowledge or consent. I hope the parents in CA stand up to this big time and shut the bas***rds down. What do 12-year-olds know anything about vaccines, the safety of them, and the side effects? They are not old enough to weigh risks vs. benefits for crying out loud! Plus, I'm sure these vaccines would be pushed on these kids in such a way where it makes the kids feel comfortable to get them, enabling them to consent every time. I could just see ads all around the school promoting these vaccines making them seem as if they are so wonderful, just like they do with ads on TV, or handing out pamphlets to the kids. Sick.
hmmmm ------- I mean some 12 years old I know think that they should be allowed to drink/ They have thought about it carefully and have decided that because they don;t drive, they would not pose a danger to others. A carefully thought out rational choice don't you think? I'm all for lowering the legal drinking age to 12. In fact I think 12 years old should be able to decide if they wish to attend school as well. I mean if 12 is the age that "they" have decided that kids can make sound rational choices having fully weighed the pros and cons of their actions - then why not just make that the age where kids can be emancipated from their parents should they so choose.
Seriously though - this is ridiculous. I know a 12 year old girl who recently had a meltdown (I mean serious meltdown) when she was told she could not attend a Justin Beiber concert unchaperoned. The hysterics that ensued were acadamy award worthy - and she is mature enough to make a choice that has the possibility of serious injury or death? or even has the maturity enough to express concerns and ask he right questions to establish the pros and cons - follow up on what they are being told by their doctor - weigh the evidence and make a truly informed choice? Gimmme a break. I still had a cabbage patch kid when I was 12.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.