Dachel Wake Up: CA School Funding In Jeopardy Post SB277
By Anne Dachel
SB 277: "This new law has a lot of parents in a total uproar," and it's turned school administrators into the vaccine police. And since school funding is based on enrollment, districts could lose hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Forcing parents to home school sounds like a violation of a child's right to a free and appropriate education.
The second story is from the San Francisco Chronicle and it's truly frightening. A child who "became unresponsive for nine days after her first ... Tdap, shot when she was a baby" was granted only a one-year medical exemption. Her sister, who's entering kindergarten, couldn't get one.
Aug 25, 2016, Humboldt County (CA) North Coast Journal: Prepare for Impact [of SB277]
A new vaccination law has school administrators caught between a needle and a hard place
As the first day of school approaches, there's an anxiety building in many administrative offices throughout Humboldt County. The anxiety doesn't seem to be pervasive, but cloistered in different pockets throughout the region. And it centers around a simple question: Will students show up?...
"We have to wait and see how it shakes out," said Stephanie Steffano-Davis, principal of Whitethorn Elementary. "But at this point, what I'm hearing is that vaccination is an issue for a lot of people and they're looking at alternatives. A lot of people are looking at alternatives to public education."
With a new state law on the books that mandates that just about every child in California be fully vaccinated for 10 communicable diseases before attending school, some, like Steffano-Davis, are worried about the impacts. And they could be dramatic. Humboldt County, which ranked 52nd of California's 58 counties in vaccination rates for incoming kindergarteners last school year, when 10.4 percent of Humboldt's 1,741 kids entered school with a personal belief exemption (PBE) that sidestepped mandatory vaccinations....
Take Tenae LaPorte, who has quit her job in a local dermatologist's office to homeschool her children. She had planned on sending them to Fieldbrook Elementary but is dead set against vaccinating them. ...
But the bill also did something many in the public didn't expect: It put schools on the front lines of California's immunization war. Because the Legislature didn't want to fund an enforcement mechanism, it simply made vaccinations a condition of education and forced administrators to be the gatekeepers.
"We are very frustrated that we are now the immunization police," said Julia Anderson, the executive director of Beginnings in Briceland, which includes Skyfish elementary school and a child care center. "This new law has a lot of parents in a total uproar."
While the new law may have parents in some communities in an uproar, administrators at the schools that will potentially face the biggest impacts don't seem to want to talk about it. Scores of calls and emails to administrators at schools with historically large numbers of personal belief exemptions went unreturned. When administrators did reply, the response was generally curt.
"We don't know the impacts yet ... won't know until we see how many students arrive on August 25th," wrote Catherine Scott, superintendent of Southern Humboldt Unified School District, in an email....
It's not difficult to understand why administrators would be on edge given what's at stake. In California, school funding is tightly tied to enrollment and attendance. That means parents' deciding that homeschooling their children is preferable to vaccinating them has a direct impact on school budgets and, consequently, staffing.
Aug 22, 2016, San Francisco Chronicle: Thousands start school without vaccinations as new law rolls out
...San Francisco mom Adrienne Moore, who fought the law, spent months trying to get a medical exemption for her kindergartner.
Moore said her daughter became unresponsive for nine days after her first tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis, or Tdap, shot when she was a baby. Before school started last week, she said, her doctor agreed to support a one-year medical exemption.
Moore’s second daughter, who would start kindergarten next year, has no exemption. If it’s a choice between vaccines and homeschooling, the mom said her girls would stay home.
The law is still subject to a court battle, and a federal judge in San Diego is expected to rule this week on whether to delay it while a legal challenge proceeds. A lawsuit filed by an antivaccination group, Education 4 All, charges that the law violates the right to an education under California’s constitution.
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.
OK, more from California Medical Board Meeting in San Francisco:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhvecqeTa1M
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 31, 2016 at 04:48 PM
Also, interesting discussion in the link I just posted about aluminum and interleukin-6 levels (5:55) and vaccine injury research.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 31, 2016 at 04:25 PM
I'm not certain of the context of this video, probably a board meeting in Santa Barbara regarding SB 277:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMYLCZuhd2U
And I probably can't translate the last four minutes of comment, but assuming it's about Santa Barbara County monitoring medical exemptions, it sounded like an explanation that this "investigation model" was already built into the system (and I guess the actual existence of SB 277 somehow makes them have to investigate medical exemptions now or were they always, but not so many were given? Nevermind the language in the bill about physician discretion?).
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 31, 2016 at 04:10 PM
"... unvaccinated homeschoolers may not congregate for "classroom" learning. However they could presumably congregate informally for socializing ..."
How the hell did they ever get away with this?
Posted by: Linda1 | August 29, 2016 at 09:21 AM
Not living in CA, but having been a home educator in Scotland for many years, as I understand the SB277 on the subject, unvaccinated homeschoolers may not congregate for "classroom" learning. However they could presumably congregate informally for socializing (which seasoned homeschoolers believe is the most effective way of learning anyway.) Our friends in USA are going to have to think outside the box!
Posted by: Grace Green | August 29, 2016 at 05:27 AM
Here is a great website for California parents who have questions about homeschooling:
http://www.hsc.org/legal-faq_1.html
Posted by: Bayareamom | August 28, 2016 at 06:50 PM
"So homeschool coops are illegal"
Maybe the children can wear masks.
(sarcasm)
Seriously, though - I think I remember Pan backing down on not allowing homeschooled children to congregate.
Hard to believe we're even discussing whether healthy children have the right to free assembly in America.
Posted by: Linda1 | August 28, 2016 at 03:56 PM
@ciaparker
Re SB277, it does not allow classroom-based education of non-vaccinated children. So homeschool coops are illegal, unless all of the children participating are vaccinated or have medical exemptions.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | August 28, 2016 at 02:32 PM
SB277 is not about school. It is about forced drugging by government and must be fought on several levels: the so-called science that the law is based on must be challenged, the right of individuals to informed consent for medical treatment without government coercion or penalty must be established, the claim that the unvaccinated are a threat to society, making them second class citizens, criminalizing noncompliance with government established medical recommendations, must be legally challenged, the usurpation of parental authority must be legally challenged. The law threatens life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not just because it bars children from school. The law removes individual rights while inappropriately empowering/enriching government institutions and their private business partners. School is the least of it, and by biting off such a small chunk of the problem, the essence of the problem is not being addressed.
The argument that the law is unnecessary because of high vaccination rates should never be used either, because as more learn the truth about vaccination, rates will drop drastically. The argument should not be that dropping rates are a valid reason for forced vaccination.
Posted by: Linda1 | August 28, 2016 at 10:34 AM
Have enough homeschool cooperatives, including for Spanish-speaking children, been set up low- or no-cost so that every child in California has access to one?
Posted by: ciaparker | August 27, 2016 at 01:20 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-wont-block-strict-child-vaccination-law-in-california/
http://www.kusi.com/story/32852589/san-diego-federal-judge-denies-block-on-state-law-requiring-children-to-be-vaccinated
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 26, 2016 at 11:46 PM
There is a lot of room in the teal¹ states; the ones that accept personal belief exemptions!
¹See Map: http://www.chop.edu/sites/default/files/styles/16_9_large/public/news-do-you-know-rewriting-vaccine-exemption-map-16x9.jpg?itok=msr-81xW
Posted by: Narad | August 26, 2016 at 09:38 PM
Help! A little help!
Posted by: Benedetta | August 26, 2016 at 09:30 PM
Oppps wrong link -- this one perhaps leads us to our Mississippi MOM.
Lauren LollyBean Hoerning Lynch
Posted by: Benedetta | August 26, 2016 at 09:29 PM
Look on the bright side California will soon be just like Mississippi and West Virginia - Two of the bottom states - like largest number in poverty, stuff like that.
So, I loved this Mom from Mississippi and what she had to say about getting those exemptions from vaccines from - NOT THE DOCTORS - but the STATE HEALTH BOARD!
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006964151372
Posted by: Benedetta | August 26, 2016 at 09:27 PM
"...which excludes dissemination of "illegally obtained," i.e. secretly obtained recordings of a conversation with a healthcare provider "solely to law enforcement for investigative purposes," and to me that indicates an intent to keep "healthcare" providers feeling they might be or actually being subjected to secret surveillance, despite California being a "two-party" state, in regards to legally recording a conversation."
The bill that Rappoport was discussing has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with SB277. That abill stems from right wing groups who were upset over that whole Planned Parenthood debacle which happened around a year ago re surreptitious recordings of a gal who worked with PP.
Dr. Brian Hooker's recording of Dr. William Thompson was completely legal; he recorded ALL conversations with Thompson when he (Hooker) was in Oregon.
Normally, I hold great admiration for Rappoport's research; on this one, however, he missed the boat.
Posted by: Bayareamom | August 26, 2016 at 07:46 PM
Federal Judge denies injunction re California lawsuit:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-vaccination-schools-20160826-snap-story.html
Posted by: Bayareamom | August 26, 2016 at 07:14 PM
Phil: Au contraire. Read the claim (bolenreport). Dr. Charity Dean, of the Santa Barbara County health department, in collusion with both the state health department and the state medical board, and with “moral” support from Dorit Reiss, attempted to set up a system to audit medical exemptions which don’t meet SB 277 “criteria.” She is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. As horrible as SB 277 is, it actually broadened the medical exemption, leaving it entirely up to the professional judgement of the physician, so there are no “criteria.” So in theory, it should be possible to get a medical exemption from any doctor who considers the health of his/her patients foremost. The reality is far different. Very few doctors are in solo practice; most are part of a system which contracts with insurers. Insurance companies make it very difficult for their doctors to write medical exemptions, and some, such as Kaiser, forbid any which don’t meet the CDC guidelines. Very few doctors in California are able to write medical exemptions, even though the law explicitly gives them the authority to do so. Whether or not we get a preliminary injunction, the trial itself will expose this dark underbelly of our “health departments.” Pan is a good pal of this Charity Dean, so maybe he’ll get tangled up in the case, as well. The allegations against her (with evidence from her own hand) carry both civil and criminal penalties.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | August 26, 2016 at 06:33 PM
Re: "There will never be any kind of audit of medical exemptions, so once the Doctors exemption letter is filed, it's pretty much done."
I'm not certain this will be the case.
http://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/santa-barbara-moves-to-axe-vaccine-medical-exemptions-already-on-file
There's also some nurses talking of having to take vaccine history in the ER for electronic record keeping (I'm not sure from what areas of the country), which to my mind may be prelude to making medical care dependent upon vaccination status. It certainly will lend to easier auditing to have everyone's "health" data in a large database.
Also, there's this bill in the works:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/the-film-vaxxed-could-be-outlawed-in-california-if-this-bill-passes/
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1671
which excludes dissemination of "illegally obtained," i.e. secretly obtained recordings of a conversation with a healthcare provider "solely to law enforcement for investigative purposes," and to me that indicates an intent to keep "healthcare" providers feeling they might be or actually being subjected to secret surveillance, despite California being a "two-party" state, in regards to legally recording a conversation.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 26, 2016 at 06:04 PM
Phil,
All must stand strongly together to fight this unjust law whether they manage to obtain an exemption or not.
Posted by: Linda1 | August 26, 2016 at 05:36 PM
The loopholes that are available should be fully used. Many only mention the home schooling option, however getting a medical exemption is not that difficult. Most families and children have some sort of autoimmune issue, whether it's an allergy, a skin problem, or other family history. A medical exemption can be issued. Many believe that a serious illness is needed for an exemption, fortunately the threshold is pretty basic. The law is pretty vague and gives Doctors the ultimate control. There will never be any kind of audit of medical exemptions, so once the Doctors exemption letter is filed, it's pretty much done. Good luck!
Posted by: Phil Haas | August 26, 2016 at 04:46 PM
Friends, most adults pay no attention to this bill., beyond thinking, "Ya sure, all kids should be vaccinated" . What I tell people is something I deeply believe " This has nothing to do with the children. This is just setting the stage for forcing adults to be vaccinated every year, and please notice a that all laws like this one, also state that you must take any new vaccine that gets approved. You are the sitting duck, not the school children - YOU " Now YOU will be the one to be injected with flu vaccines that contain mercury that wipes out your immune system for a few months. Good luck with that"
Posted by: Cherry Misra | August 26, 2016 at 01:48 PM
I admittedly have a tough time not blaming the "school system" as significantly as the medical system and the corporate media system for the vaccine injury epidemics (though they, the school system, are just another of many groups of individuals financially not-exactly-completely-enslaved-but-pretty-darn-close-or-much-more-than-most-will-admit by those accustomed culturally to exploiting the labor of others--I'm not as independent as I would like to be either), and I've been further disillusioned by asking a few more questions and finding that some of the other fundamental elements of my educations were misleading if not outright false. It's hard to want to keep asking questions, so maybe I should understand why so many refuse to even consider that various problems could be real.
I feel completely defrauded right now on several points and consider that of my lifetime has been wasted or worse directed towards the harming of myself and loved ones.
I sometimes want to say to all young, newly employed, eager to save the world idealists, if you're entering into a field that is essentially mandated or "too big too fail" or so fundamentally important for some function or other to be questioned or unfortunately widely venerated...beware!!! You might do more good (or less harm) if you sell vendor food at the ballpark (especially if it's not GMO) for a living or something like one.
And if you're a little more seasoned, but have a sympathetic attitude, even a tendency to get behind with enthusiasm (possibly financially influenced) toward mandating a practice widely held to be good, look at the health of the immune systems and neurological systems of our children raised under so many mandates (or mandate-like practices) and please get a clue, painfully, yes, but the U.S. is no longer a first world country (there's not really much reason to have pride in our systems IMO), and we cannot think after decades of careless and probably deliberate exposure to neurotoxins that we know how to do anything for good by just being good cogs in the system. Rather, we're very susceptible to dancing to the tunes of those who think they are "the greater good."
I can't bemoan the denial of the "right to a 'free' and 'appropriate' education" (even one given by well intended and exceptional teachers), but I do worry about the further isolation and marginalization of those who refuse (try to refuse) these mandates (originally there was no homeschooling opt out in the bill written by Pan or whomever). I actually wish the numbers of those walking out appeared to be larger.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 26, 2016 at 12:29 PM
How many kids, RIGHT NOW, are undergoing "catch up" shots - at great risk! Parents are being told what to do, with their backs against the wall - receiving coercive calls from school administrators - being cajoled by news stories from ABC and CBS, and likely Peds are just doing it...catching them up. How many shots at ONCE is too many? Is anyone, anywhere in this process right now...even thinking about that? School admins are the one's right now...NOT being brave and saying NO!
Seriously, WTF are the implications of a wizened school principle, superintendent, or health official, to personally say NO...allow the "less than 100%" compliers into school...until 1) the SD decision comes in 2) it can be deemed SAFE for a respective kid to "catch up", 3) whatever. Since the Gov't didn't fund any "enforcement mechanism."
What is our greatest problem today? People of nominal stature doing the bidding of heavy handed ill intended people of power? The latter cannot control the public without the former. Same with the doctors that continue to allow themselves and their integrity to be USED by the power structure, to overtly cajole and harm others. Shame!
I'm in CA and holding tight to my PBE...I’m on the edge of my seat awaiting the San Diego Federal Court decision on the injunction of SB277… and while draconian things are happening, it’s tough to fathom the injunction NOT happening. My hope - the injunction will come today and the nation will have a WTF moment, which they need -then all of us who’ve known better will really be called to task to help support the awareness and guidance so desperately needed.
We must all, as Del Bigtree has been inspiring...be Brave!
Posted by: Martin Matthews | August 26, 2016 at 11:23 AM
I think the judge has deliberately delayed this decision in the hope of forcing parents to give in. As a lawyer once said to me regarding a battle of will, "it's a question of who blinks first" (btw I didn't blink!).
I also think the whole SB277 law is about corruption - there are many well off and intelligent people in CA who will not want to give up their jobs to home educate. It may be hoped that they will offer a remuneration in exchange for a fraudulent vaccine certificate. That's why Pan has such a wide grin!
Posted by: Grace Green | August 26, 2016 at 11:22 AM