Preliminary Injunction Hearing on SB 277 in San Diego Federal Court on Friday, August 12th
Age of Autism Weekly Wrap: More Mefloquine Mayhem; Hiding Behind 'Hindsight'; a Polio Pause

No Ruling in SB277 Hearing

Banned kids
As of yesterday, there is no ruling in the SB277 Hearing that took place yesterday.  From the San Diego Union Tribune:

No immediate ruling in school vaccination case Federal judge in San Diego on Friday heard arguments for and against suspending new state law

A federal judge held off on making an immediate decision about whether to suspend California’s controversial school vaccination law after a hearing Friday afternoon in downtown San Diego.

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw listened to a request from 17 families and two foundations seeking a preliminary injunction against Senate Bill 277, which the Legislature passed last year and whose main provision took effect on July 1.

The law identifies medical reasons as the only justification for doctors to grant children an exemption from the mandate that students in both public and private schools, as well as day-care facilities, be immunized. Religious and "personal belief" considerations are no longer valid under state law.

The law stemmed from a measles outbreak linked to a visitor or visitors at Disneyland in Anaheim. It requires all kindergartners and seventh-graders to prove they have received the government’s recommended set of vaccinations....

Comments

ndavis

What's the status of the SB277 suit?

A friend told me today that the plaintiffs withdrew the suit. Does that mean that there's no hope at all that SB277 will be overturned this year? School is starting--or has already started--throughout California.

Narad

Two new articles on SB 277 posted today:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/mandatory-vaccination-in-ca-lets-school-a-federal-judge/
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/grotesquely-incompetent-judge-wont-suspend-mandatory-vaccination/

And like all of his articles, they are succinct yet powerful.

HealthFreedom

It seemed inevitable that the Judge would pass the buck. Too big of a decision to make without a supreme court ruling. On to the 9th court...

annie

Sadly, I think no answer is THE answer. Taking a week or so to render a decision alone is keeping kids out of school. If the judge felt an injunction was warranted he would have granted one right away. I agree that arguments against vaccine mandates need to be rooted in the fact that they are NOT safe and effective. The "greater good" argument will always win the day. It has to be proven that the greater good is not being served.

Jeannette Bishop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owBLGP9E38Q

Jane

Lisa
totally agree with you. As Dr. Wakefield has said many times, the fight against mandated vaccines should rely on their dangers and ineffectiveness not on constitutional grounds because they will use the "greater good" argument all the time. Our submission should have attached hard copies or internet links to a plethora of peer reviewed studies which point to safety questions around vaccines. He should have had to read them and they could have become part of his reasons to grant the injunction. I worry that the judge is probably taking so much time to give his decision in order to make it look like he is putting a lot of thought into it. However, I fear It could also be because the delay will give him and the pharmaceutical companies plenty time to write a carefully prepared statement that can't be challenged. In it they will no doubt provide him with plenty of their flawed reasons to justify his decision. It was a real worry that the lawyers on our side said they felt he had already made up his mind before he began proceedings and was nodding as though in agreement with comments made by the opposition. They also presented and relied on outdated, inaccurate and irrelevant stories about smallpox to scare the judge and justify their concerns. We can but live in hope that by some miracle he rules in our favor.

Jenny Allan

From link supplied above:-
"The law lists medical reasons as the only justification for doctors to grant children an exemption from the mandate that students in both public and private schools, as well as day-care facilities, be immunized. Religious and so-called “personal belief” considerations are no longer valid under state law.
“I understand the significance of the issue and how deeply held these personal beliefs are, and I will take that all into consideration when I issue a ruling,” Sabraw said. He added that his decision will likely be issued the week of Aug. 22."

I applaud the efforts of the Californian domiciled families fighting for a court injunction against SB277, a draconian 'blanket' law which takes little or no account of individual family and child circumstances. The UK Supreme Court has just granted 'a stay of execution' against a similar draconian state sponsored regime which proposed 'monitoring' the upbringing of every child in Scotland from before birth to 18 years. Needless to say, vaccines were stated to be a 'must' in this proposed legislation, and failure to comply with the official child immunisation schedule would have inevitably have resulted in official bullying or sanctions against the parents. In the UK, child vaccinations are not mandatory, but this legislation would have made them effectively mandatory in Scotland. The Supreme Court Judges ruled against the Scottish Government on data protection and European human rights laws. The judges stated the proposed legislation was the first step to a 'totalitarian' state, which targets children, as Hitler did with his youth programmes to indoctrinate children, even encouraging them to 'inform' on parents. Chillingly, the Scottish Court of Session previously found in favour of the legislation, following a previous challenge, by the same few individual parents and a couple of Christian charities. The legal costs were horrendous, around £300,000 ($400,000).

In both cases, winning the appeals, may not stop the proposed legislations. An injunction only delays matters. The Scottish Government has been given 6 weeks to reform the legislation to make it compatible with existing legal protections. The Scottish National Party has never demonstrated any willingness to listen to their Scottish Citizens, particularly parents. I am well aware of their views on vaccines, similar to Hilary Clinton's 'blue sky' fantasies.

For the record, I think the Californian families were wise to argue their cases on US Constitutional rights, rather than 'vaccine safety' issues. I hope Judge Sabraw has the moral strength and integrity to rise above all the pharma and other vested interests putting pressure on him.

no-vac

Generally I concur with Lisa that vaccines' lack of safety should be the principal argument in legal fights for vaccination freedom. However we must admit that in the US, public and personal "safety" is practically irrelevant. If it was important, US govt would not engage in plethora of frivolous, amoral wars for profits, it would not permit Monsanto and pharma corporations to massively poison the people, etc., etc. But the religious freedom is incorporated into the 1st Amendment, hence government attack on this freedom is an offense against US Constitution.

Stand Up

I echo your sentiments exactly Lisa!

Confronting vaccine dogma --exposing the truth--the lies, corruption, and the false and untenable argument that vaccines immunize on any level is paramount to achieving long term success in maintaining the individual and parental right to choose using any medical product OR NOT!

(That said I applaud the proponents efforts for an injunction and hope for the best and more of this to come-we shall see..)

Linda1

Lisa,
I agree 100%. It is about shady science and corruption threatening civil liberty and causing harm. It is not only about the right to attend school.

Lisa

I haven't followed this case very closely, but I'm concerned that the people who filed this injunction did not submit the legions of evidence pointing to dubious vaccine safety science -- not to mention downright fraud (aka Thompson's CDC) -- in their arguments. It seems to me that this -- and this alone -- has got to be the argument for our side going forward. All other arguments -- the right to a free education, the right to express religious freedom through vaccine refusal -- can be interpreted in a variety of ways by the courts since those arguments rest on personal philosophies. Safety, and safety alone, rests entirely on science. Plus, I thought our side was going to start using injunctions to bring all of the shady vaccine science into a real court system, with a real judge (as opposed to the kangaroo vaccine court run by HHS).

I'm confused -- and concerned. It doesn't seem that they've brought any of this data into the court with their filing.

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.)