Levi Quackenboss on SB277 Lawsuit
Excerpted from the Levi Quackenboss blog: California Kids Strike Back.
One year from the day that California’s SB 277 was signed into law by Governor Brown, a dream team of lawyers from across the United States has filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California’s Department of Education and Department of Health for depriving its residents of their constitutional right to an education.
Approximately 2.5% of California school-aged children use a personal belief exemption to opt out of vaccinations that violate their parents’ religious or deeply-held beliefs, or are deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful by their parents and health care providers. The children of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs have been partially vaccinated or show antibody titers that qualify as proof of immunity to disease, and yet they are among the tens of thousands of healthy, disease-free children whose right to an education will be violated when school starts in the last few days of August.
In a beautifully written memo in support of their request for a temporary restraining order and injunction against the state, lawyers argue that SB 277 violates the fundamental rights to education, free exercise of religion, bodily integrity, and equal protection under the law.
45 years ago in a famous case named Serrano vs. Priest, the California court minced no words when it stated that the right to an education is “perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.” That is because an education is crucial for later financial success, it is important for building social relationships, it continues on for 13 years of a child’s life, and it impacts a child’s psychological and emotional well-being.
Education is so important that school attendance is required by law.
While some parents are able to make the sacrifices necessary to home school their children, home schooling is not possible for the overwhelming majority of families. This includes families that rely on two incomes to make ends meet, single parent households, those who do not speak English, and parents who don’t feel capable enough to teach their children themselves. This means that the impact SB 277 has on poorer families will be felt the greatest. Read more at California Kids Strike Back.
the problem is this people need to vote for public servants that represent the people vote for republican if thats the guy who is going to serve you. but the majority of people are ignorant im democrate i vote democrate no matter what .and then those democrates stab you in in the back .they take money from big pharma. same with republicans . but i was looking at the yays and nays the majority of republicans voted to keep personal belief exemptions but they lost because the majority of democrates voted to remove the exemptions .i think im going to vote republicans from now on .every time you vote democrates your taxs go up when will it end 60/40 70/30 democrates sell out very easy. its in the blood the majority are from hispanic decent.look at mexico you get tickit you give cop money he lets you go .thats why i say its in thier blood of hispanic public servants.and im mexican.and this is my oppinion and what i believe.
Posted by: luis ojeda | August 13, 2016 at 01:41 PM
I can only say that I am relieved that there is at least one lawsuit out there against the State. I hope there are a lot more.
The State has to show a "compelling" interest in banning these kids from the classroom. How is there a compelling interest that children who don't get the hepatitis B vaccine be barred when it is a blood borne disease and children who actually have the disease have a "right" to go into the classroom. Children WITH the disease have the right, children you don't have the disease but have not received the vaccine do not. How is it a compelling interest that bars children who are not vaccinated with DTap when it is a failed vaccine. Even Kaiser concedes that this is a failed vaccine, that the baboon study showed vaccinated baboons still got asymptomatic whooping cough and spread it. Plus those vaccinated seem to be more susceptible to vaccine resistant strains. How is this making the classroom safer. It obviously doesn't so where is the compelling interest to ban kids from school.
When SB277 was passed I thought about Californians tendency to use the lawsuit as an assault rifle. Anyone who has lived here for any length of time knows that everything comes down to a lawsuit. I really hope that there are lots of lawsuits.... And God forbid this lawsuit doesn't work I hope at least people will sue to avoid DTap and Hep B. Maybe Thompson will be subpoenaed and then it will be possible to sue over the MMR. I can see lawsuits popping up into the future like toadstools after a rain.
Posted by: kapoore | July 02, 2016 at 10:50 AM
'While some parents are able to make the sacrifices necessary to home school their children, home schooling is not possible for the overwhelming majority of families. This includes families that rely on two incomes to make ends meet, single parent households, those who do not speak English, and parents who don’t feel capable enough to teach their children themselves. This means that the impact SB 277 has on poorer families will be felt the greatest."
SB 277 is nothing less than "willful depravation of basic civil rights" ... that all children are given "equal right and protection" to attend Public School .. that is "guaranteed" by the US Constitution of the United States .. not the State of California.
This type of willful "governmental discrimination" is WORSE .. if that is even possible ... than previous "separate but equal" facilities for black children .. because .. the State of California is not even pretending to create a "separate but equal" system for children .. regardless of "why" those children unvaccinated.
I wish I had the confidence in our present Justice system to rely upon the Supreme Court as a last resort to "correct this UNJUSTICE" .. however .. I no longer have confidence the Supreme Court will follow the US Constitution as it was written to be followed.
Consider .. a majority of the Supreme Court found the State of Texas enacted legislation regarding "safety regulations of abortion clinics" the Court determined would place an "undue burden" on a woman's "right to abortion".
Of course .. I am an idiot .. but .. eventually the Supreme Court may have to decide if the State of California has placed an "undue burden" on a child seeking their "right to an education".
Who knows what the Court will rule .. as they at times seem to "manufacture" their own majority opinion on who or what constitutes an "undue burden" on our Constitutionally "guaranteed" rights .. such as .. the unborn infant's "right to life".
Posted by: Bob Moffit | July 02, 2016 at 07:04 AM