CA Bans Tanning Beds for Minors, Allows Vaccination for STD without Parental Consent for Minors
The Wakefield Rehabilitation?

National Vaccine Information Center Calls New CA Vaccine Law A “Violation of Parental Informed Consent Rights and Federal Law”

Barb loe fisher WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) today criticized California Governor Jerry Brown for bowing to pressure from the pharmaceutical and medical trade lobby and signing a controversial bill (AB499) into law that allows 12 year old children to be vaccinated without the knowledge or consent of their parents. The new California law allows minor children as young as 12 years old to be given Gardasil and hepatitis B vaccine, as well as future vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, without the informed consent of their parents.

 “The law, which Governor Brown must take personal responsibility for enacting, is a violation of parental rights and federal vaccine safety law,” said NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher. “He has done what a lot of powerful people are doing today in America, which is making it easy for big corporations and trade organizations, including doctors and drug companies protected from vaccine injury lawsuits, to exploit ordinary people to increase influence and profits. This law will put the lives of minor children too young to make medical decisions at risk. California parents, who will not be informed before their minor children are given vaccines, will be the ones left to deal with the consequences legally and financially if their child becomes vaccine injured.”

The National Vaccine Information Center worked with Congress to secure vaccine safety provisions in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, including the requirement for doctors and vaccine providers to fully inform parents about vaccine side effects before minor children are vaccinated. The 1986 law, which created a federal vaccine injury compensation program that has awarded more than $2 billion to the vaccine injured, also mandated that doctors and all vaccine providers record and report vaccine adverse effects to the government to help reduce vaccine injuries and deaths.

NVIC Director of Advocacy, Dawn Richardson, who designed NVIC’s online Advocacy Portal (, worked with families in California to provide Governor Brown and the public with information about why the proposed legislation violated parents’ long held legal right to make medical decisions for their minor children. “Governor Brown’s signing of this legislation signals a negative trend in state public health policy making. Big Pharma has been working behind the scenes in California, Washington and other states to take away parental rights and vaccine exemptions,” said Richardson. “Under federal law, parents are supposed to get vaccine information before their children are vaccinated to help minimize risks and this new California law raises, rather than reduces, vaccine risks for children.”

AB499 is estimated to cost the state of California millions of dollars to implement because Merck currently sells Gardasil vaccine to the government for more than $100 per dose and sells hepatitis B vaccine for $27 per dose. Three doses of each vaccine are given. Future vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, such as genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea and HIV/AIDS, will likely be more expensive. In addition to vaccine purchase costs, there are additional costs for vaccine delivery and administration.

NVIC is a non-profit organization founded in 1982 and dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and defending the informed consent ethic in medicine. NVIC advocates for the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the vaccination system and does not advocate for or advise against the use of vaccines. For more information, visit


Theresa O

I'm taking that as a compliment, Benedetta ;-)

I agree with you--it's easy to see the cover story, and of course we know what the real motivation is.

What I am waiting for is when a 12-year-old girl gets the shot without her parents' knowledge, gets injured, and tries to sue. Since she could not have legally waived her right to sue the manufacturer, I look forward to her taking the manufacturer for all it's worth.

I mean, California still requires parents to sign field trip permission slips, right? Because a child can't waive her right to hold the school district responsible for any harm that befalls her. So no matter what a kid signs at Planned Parenthood, she can't legally waive her right to sue.

(As for the cost, if California is serious about not telling Mom and Dad, then the state will be handing the drug companies $120 per dose for three doses of Gardasil, and I don't know how much for Hep B. I wonder how deeply in debt a state needs to be, to realize that it would be better off letting parents exercise their rights--and use their private health insurance to cover their kids' medical treatments.)


AB499 needs to be nullified as soon as possible.This is the
time to teach them that the parents can not be bypassed by
corrupted politicians and agressive pharmaceutical companies.These 12 year olds need all the protection from the parents they can get.Parents may pull them from school
and establish home-school co-operatives,letters need to be sent to schools to inform the school and the nurses
that their job is to EDUCATE the children and stop pushing
toxic aluminum vaccines and stay out of the vaccination business.Gardasil is an infertility vaccine that they try to
give to both sexes.It is also damages the brain,as polysorbates have the ability to bypass the blood brain barrier and carry the the aluminum (and the other ingredients viral particles,yeast,boric acid)to the brain/CNS.
Governor Brown needs to resign,he stepped on parental rights.


HUMAN NEEDS BEFORE PHARMA GREED. This legislation is about harm. I wish it provided constitutional freedom, like teen reproductive rights. This only opened the door for anyone from the public school to inject kids - and I'd have legal responsibility to care for if that injection killed brain function.
Health care for teens CAN be better legally structured to allow for reproductive rights. AMEN. No many of us know but, teens actually are allowed walk out of school to visit a reproductive clinic without any parent consent or knowledge. Counsellors usually tell this to a teen. So, there is already a legal allowance for teens reproductive rights.
So, lets get crystal clear.
++Reproductive rights are not vaccine rights. ++
Obviously Brown does not agree because his defense was: "It's always a close question as to what we might allow, but we do that with other reproductive kinds of issues, and I felt this one is similar to what we've done before," Brown said.

So this parents view? Never, and I mean NEVER, put a needle on my kids and expect compliance.
THAT is fine to do in South CA, I guess, as it was proposed by by Toni Atkins:
AB 499 by Assemblymember Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Minors: medical care: consent.
I highly suggest you all give her your thoughts:
(916) 319-2076

Theresa O

...but birth control is different in at least one respect: anyone who develops (for example) a blood clot as the result of taking hormonal birth control is permitted to sue the manufacturer, so buying the product is not making a legal decision. Taking a vaccine, on the other hand, is implicitly waiving your right to due process, which a minor is not competent to do. I'm really hoping some smart lawyer takes this up.

Theresa O

According to eHow, not from an MD, but from nurses:

"Ideally, you're first step is to talk with your family physician or gynecologist. After a physical exam, you can discuss available methods of contraception and she can advise you which one would be best for you. If you are under 18, this visit will require your parent's permission. While this may not seem like a viable option, your parents should be informed in case any medical issues arise while you are taking birth control."

"If there is a local family planning clinic or Planned Parenthood nearby, you can receive discreet services regardless of your age."

"Another option that may be available to you if you are a minor is to obtain birth control pills from your school nurse. While not all high schools offer this option, many have taken steps in this direction. Your nurse can discreetly administer pills to you and counsel you on their proper usage and risks."

And from Columbia, here:

"If you are a minor (under eighteen years), and you live in the United States, you have rights to confidential reproductive health care. What this means is that unless you consent or give permission to your health care provider, s/he cannot disclose your medical records to anyone, including your parents (except in the case of abortion services, which depends on your particular state's law). Additionally, since no state or federal laws exist at the present time that would prevent minors from obtaining contraception, teens don't need parental consent or notification to get birth control pills, condoms, emergency contraception, and other contraceptive choices."

It still doesn't make sense to me: we'll sell kids the products, but we don't think they're competent to have the sex is involved in using them. Clearly, a decision is being made that commerce is more important than health and safety. (A school nurse with no access to your medical files can put you on hormonal birth control? That doesn't seem right to me.) They can pretend it's about privacy and reproductive freedom, but since minors are, by definition, not legally able to consent to sex, it's clearly only about selling products--now a whole bunch of products, some of them very risky--to an entire group of people not legally allowed to use them.


Theresa O
Your problem is:
You have too much common sense and intelligence, so of course none of this makes sense to you.

So let me try to explain to you in the twisted mind set that they have.

These kids are not allowed to have sex, but if a few of them do - a minority - and then a fewer still will get HPVs - well we hurt for them, we feel for them, we need to protect those so very few - so in order to protect those few then everybody needs to get their shots.

Now if a few (we really don't know the number and quit frankly don't care) react to that vaccine, a minority we are sure, well heck we can't help everybody, we are not God after all, and these kids they are just on their own - besides, they deserve it anyway, for being born with genes like that to begin with.

I am sorry Theresa O
That probably is not the way it is at all- it is more like we have a product to sell and lets get it sold- how about that Governor Brown - we scratch his back and he scratches ours. Nothing like government tax payer money - although of course we are practically giving it away since it is a charity - almost giving it to the government, almost?

Wonder how much the government is going to pay for the Gadisil vaccine with three whole boosters?


Can girls age 12 request birth control without parental consent? The Pill or an IUD or another prescribed method I mean.

Theresa O

I'm particularly baffled that kids as young as 12 have now been granted the right to receive STD vaccines, even though they don't have the legal ability to consent to sex.

California § 261. 5(b)
"Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 and the actor is not more than three years older or three years younger, is guilty of a misdemeanor"

This is true even if both participants are minors:

"In some jurisdictions (such as California), if two minors have sex with each other, they would both be guilty of engaging in unlawful sex with the other person (misdemeanor instead of felony)."

So why the rush to get these kids to buy the product, if they can't legally take advantage of it for six years? (I understand the appeal for the drug companies, but I don't understand how the governor can defend this one.)

Cynthia Cournoyer

What about the law that requires VIS? Vaccine Information Statements are going to be read by 12 year olds? I doubt it.

One of the defenses in the Perry case was that at least parents would have been able to "opt out."

The biggest question still needing to be answered, in my mind is that what if the parents sign an exemption when enrolling the student? If the student is exempt, then OK. But the definition of "no parental permission" could also mean the student can decide, regardless of the signed exemption?


Pharma has immunity. Period. It is a crime. No one can sue, regardless of age as far as I know. That's the kind of blanket immunity Frist & friends gave to pharma on a silver platter.

What do the vaccine injured get? Zip. Oh, wait, in my son's case a lifetime supply of broken dreams & struggling to just have a "normal" day without ASD!!! And that is at our cost!!


Jerry Brown has just been "officially" inducted in the Hall of Shame! This is a lifetime legacy for humanity. There will be others. Rick Perry doesn't have the market cornered on crony capitalism. They are both unfit for public office. The electorate needs to let their voices be heard.

Maurine Meleck

The law needs to be challenged on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
I certainly hope that it is legally challenged before any children are hurt.
Talk about the "Occupy Protests"--how about occupying Brown's office.


Childhood vaccines, I never paid!
They were free at the health department.
They were free from the peds office after they had "made an agreement" with the state medical board to give them and they were excited about all the money they were going to get from that agreement.

So, cashed strapped California will pay for them.

Now the flu vaccine - the veterans pay some on them, but as we all know it cost in Wal Mart.

Theresa O

I have two thoughts on this, from a non-health perspective:

(1) Does this mean that Gardasil will be free (taxpayer-funded) for the kids who elect to get it without their parents' permission? Or will kids be required to show their parents' health insurance cards? Because when I was twelve years old, I never walked around with my parents' Blue Cross card--in fact, my mother only gave it to me when I got my teeth cleaned without her with me. So if it's not free for the insured, maybe some kids will need to talk to their parents about it, despite the new law, just to get the health insurance card.

(2) Doesn't this law (because of VICP) implicitly allow kids as young as 12 to waive their right to sue the vaccine manufacturer? My understanding is that no one under age 18 can waive his/her right to sue... so I would think that this law would be subject to challenge on those grounds.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)