Dachel Morning Wake Up: Response to Alberta HPV Vaccine Study
Week One: Autism for Adults

Breitbart Reports: Parents Sue to Stop SB277

Goodbye CAExcerpted from Breitbart. 

A group of parents and organizations sued the State of California last Friday in an attempt to stop the vaccine mandate that now stands in effect for the upcoming school year.

Six parents and four not-for-profit organizations joined together to file the lawsuit against the State of California and its applicable departments and authorities. The plaintiffs seek relief based on “a child’s right to an education” as “long recognized” by the California Supreme Court, according to court documents.

The four organizations joining in the lawsuit are: Nevada-based Education for All, D.C.-based Weston A. Price Foundation, Nevada-based Citizens for Health, and Georgia-based Alliance for Natural Healt

Waves of efforts to stop vaccine mandate SB 277 failed to stop the legislators bent on its passage. The bill that became law and went into effect on July 1 of this year eliminated California parents’ choice in whether to vaccinate their children unless they have the means to homeschool or enroll a child in non-classroom-based independent study. Gone are the personal belief waivers that allowed parents to opt a child out of even one dose of a required vaccine and still attend public or private school.

Those that opposed SB 277 did so for a host of reasons and from across the political spectrum. California now has one of the most stringent vaccine mandates in the country. As the new lawsuit states, 47 states allow some sort of personal or religious exemption from required vaccinations.

Read more here.

Comments

Barry

What is absolutely stunning is how clear the Constitution is on these issues, and how brazen and corrupt the legislatures had to be to push through a legislation that is in clear violation of the Constitution.
**************

What boggles my mind even more, is that no one is exposing each and every one of those legislators.

You wouldn't have to expose too many of them, to send a pretty strong message to those who might be thinking about making similar deals with the devil.

Jenny Allan

Danchi- Thanks for those links. Anyone wanting the real truth about the pharmaceutical companies' reliance on vaccine revenues, should link to the financial pages and reports of annual meetings, (where shareholders are given details of projected revenues). Brian Deer's recent comment about 'vaccines not being particularly profitable' is another nail in the coffin of his credibility, almost nil anyway.

These are desperate times for Big Pharma. With most of their past big earner medications out of patent and copied far more cheaply, they MUST now roll out 'new' vaccines and simultaneously create markets for them. The hype surrounding Zika is a perfect example. There is absolutely NO PROOF this virus causes any neurological damage to unborn babies. All the news articles I've seen are illustrated with just ONE Brazilian baby with a small head. He's actually very alert and very cute, and who knows, his head might grow. The press and media have gone quiet on this after a large number of concerned doctors campaigned to cancel the Olympics. At least one participant has pulled out. Pregnant mums have been warned to avoid.

Apparently a Zika vaccine has already been developed and Zika cases have been identified in the US. Watch this space post Olympics! A mother on another AoA thread illustrates the pressure faced by parents to have their sons and daughters vaccinated with Gardasil. The advert uses an alleged cervical cancer sufferer who blames her mum for not vaccinating. There is NO EVIDENCE this vaccine prevents cancer in middle age when it usually presents. Horrifically skewed so called 'evidence' of less cervical lesions in vaccinated females should be ignored, particularly since the CDC recently claimed cervical cancer cases are increasing. Get your spin co-ordinated pharma!

There is only ONE defence against dodgy vaccines administered to teenagers. EDUCATE YOUR CHILD. These days youngsters are computer savvy and are perfectly capable of evaluating evidence so sit down with them and discuss the issues. Pharma's answer to this? Proposed HPV vaccinations given to 4 year olds. A 'trial' is already in progress. SCREAM!

Jane

A Mandatory vaccine policy can only be justified if it can be shown to be safe and effective, (essentially the greater good argument). If you want to defeat this bill, it should NOT be fought on constitutional grounds since this will just be twisted around to make the "antivaxxers" appear self indulgent and reckless with the perceived health threats to other peoples children, as is already happening. I agree with Dr. Wakefield's approach that SB277 should be fought on grounds that vaccines are unsafe, ineffective, and improperly tested. The founding fathers from Jefferson on have great quotes about the threat an unholy alliance between the government and the medical industry poses to the rights and health of the public. This threat is all the greater since there is limited liability for harmful vaccines.

Danchi

Don't know exactly where to post this but this is interesting:
3 Vaccine Manufacturers That Investors Should Consider for Their Portfolios:
Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are all producing blockbuster vaccines and have others in their pipelines. (around 300 new vaccines are currently in the pipeline)
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13629633/1/3-vaccine-manufacturers-that-investors-should-consider-for-their-portfolios.html

For Struggling Pharma Market, Vaccines Offer Path to Revenue
The World Vaccines Market Is Predicted to Reach $45.1 billion in 2022
http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/for-struggling-pharma-market-vaccines-offer-path-to-revenue/77900658/

Greg

As I understand it, the fight against SB 277 centres on two main issues, which are considered to be in violation of the Californian Constitution. First SB 277 denies an unvaxxed child her right to education. The legislation provides that an unvaxxed child can be homeschooled, but this option may not be feasible for some families. Second, SB 277 violates a child right to an equitable public education. Homeschooling simply does not cut it in this regard. This article summaries the Constitution position on these issues.

http://www.hrwstf.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Education-Governing-Law.pdf

Governing Law & Relevant Authority Overview Education is a fundamental right under the California Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is no fundamental right to education under the federal Constitution. • Article IX, Section 1 of the California Constitution recognizes that “[a] general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence [is] . . . essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people . . . .” Because of this principle, “California has assumed specific responsibility for a statewide public education system open on equal terms to all.” Butt v. California, 4 Cal. 4th 668, 680 (1992). • The equal protection clauses of the California Constitution, Article I, Section 7(a) and Article IV, Section 16(a), bar the State from maintaining the public school system in a manner that denies some students the basic educational necessities provided to other students. • In sum, under the California Constitution, public education is “uniquely a fundamental concern of the State and prohibits maintenance and operation of the common public school system in a way which denies basic educational equality to the students. The State itself bears the ultimate authority and responsibility to ensure that its district-based system of common schools provides basic equality of educational opportunity." Butt v. California, 4 Cal. 4th 668, 685 (1992). • Article IX, Section 5 of the California Constitution requires the State to “provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district.” Freedom from Discrimination • In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the U.S. Supreme Court declared segregated schools unconstitutional. • In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that excluding children of undocumented immigrants from public schools is unconstitutional. Students and their parents may not be questioned about their citizenship in determining whether students may attend school. • Cal. Educ. Code § 220 provides that “[n]o person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation … in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.”

What is absolutely stunning is how clear the Constitution is on these issues, and how brazen and corrupt the legislatures had to be to push through a legislation that is in clear violation of the Constitution. They leave the courts no choice but to do the just thing and rubbish SB277 or prove they are just as corrupt by upholding it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

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.)