California's SB-18 Seeks To Further Erode Parental Rights: Richard Acts For Pharma Yet Again
Dr. Richard Pan, the pediatician (not a typo) behind SB277, the CA bill that removed vaccination exemptions from thousands of California families is at it again. Why would a state, in the United States of America, have to enact legislation to ensure what the Constitution already protects - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Read this closely. Who decides what "acting in a child's best interest" means? Or what is "appropriate" healthcare? The state? ###
SB-18 - An act relating to children and youth
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 18, as introduced, Pan. Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California.
Existing law provides for the care and welfare of children and youth in various contexts, including, but not limited to, child welfare services, foster care, health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, and education.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 80 (Res. Ch. 101, Stats. 2009) declares the Legislature’s support of a Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California that resolves to invest in all children and youth in order to achieve specified goals to create an optimal environment for their healthy development.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to expand and codify the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California to establish a comprehensive framework that governs the rights of all children and youth in California, outlines the research-based essential needs of California’s children, and establishes standards relating to the health, safety, well-being, early childhood and educational opportunities, and familial supports necessary for all children to succeed. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature, by January 1, 2022, to enact legislation for the purpose of ensuring that the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California, in its totality, is applied evenly, equitably, and appropriately to all children and youth across the state.
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that all children and youth, regardless of gender, class, race, ethnicity, national origin, culture, religion, immigration status, sexual orientation, or ability, have inherent rights that entitle them to protection, special care, and assistance, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) The right to parents, guardians, or caregivers who act in their best interest.
(2) The right to form healthy attachments with adults responsible for their care and well-being.
(3) The right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
(4) The right to social and emotional well-being.
(5) The right to opportunities to attain optimal cognitive, physical, and social development.
(6) The right to appropriate, quality education and life skills leading to self-sufficiency in adulthood.
(7) The right to appropriate, quality health care.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to expand and codify the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California created by Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 80 (Res. Ch. 101, Stats. 2009), to establish a comprehensive framework that governs the rights of all children and youth in California, outlines the research-based essential needs of California’s children, and establishes standards relating to the health, safety, well-being, early childhood and educational opportunities, and familial supports necessary for all children to succeed.
<style="font-weight: bold; display: inline;">SEC. 2.<> It is the intent of the Legislature, by January 1, 2022, to enact appropriate legislation to accomplish all of the following:
(a) Develop and put forth research-based policy solutions that will ensure the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California, in its totality, is applied evenly, equitably, and appropriately to all children and youth across the state.
(b) Determine the amount of revenue and resources necessary to ensure that the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California, in its totality, is applied evenly, equitably, and appropriately to all children and youth across the state.
(c) Identify and obtain the revenue and resources necessary to ensure that the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California, in its totality, is applied evenly, equitably, and appropriately to all children and youth across the state.
Not sure what is happening here in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_JRX-IxjQ
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | November 11, 2017 at 02:44 PM
You need to involve as many different communities as possible, some of whom may be considered enemies - examples would be the evangelical community as well as New Age types - both would be considered "fringe," or "abnormal" at this point, the LGBTQ community, the disabled (many times the state has removed children solely on the grounds of the parents' being disabled), immigrant communities (many of whom may have values that conflict with the mainstream, in particular many Muslim families), single parents, and anyone who has ever been victimized by the family courts - CPS, mothers' rights, and fathers' rights groups. How to do that I'm not sure, as some of those groups see the others as enemies, sadly. The old "divide and conquer" thing.
Posted by: Jennifer R. | March 17, 2017 at 01:54 PM
Benedetta,
I hope (and pray) you family is and will be doing better!
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 16, 2016 at 01:47 PM
I have listened to Insel ever chance I could get.
That includes his TED talk, in which he says he is the head of the NIMH and then started quoted horrible stats of how bad mental health is in the United States. He made it clear that it was going up as he said that bipolar was the 6th leading cause of disability. That 2.6 percent have bipolar. That 1 out of 20 with bipolar was disabled - I think that was the stats.
That mental health is getting worse and he joked that perhaps he should be fired.
Put those stats in with people who are all mixed up about male and female sex hormones in some way that is around or even over 3 percent of the American population, according to the CDC who is suppose to keep up with this sort of stuff. Many of these sex hormones mixed up also have depression, and depression is not always sad, but irritability. They seem mad all the time.
I am getting off my point though.
Insel also said when he was up in front of Congress - in front of Senator Harken - so many years ago that the worse outcome for infectious diseases was mental retardation (I assume that would include autism? ), and death. He went on to stay that vaccinating was suppose to take care of the worse outcome of infectious disease, but that was not the case.
So if you take the TED talk and this statement in front of Congress together:
And he is a smart man - he has to know that vaccines are making mental health worse.
I question his mental health status;
How can you be so smart, nd so ethical, morally, soulless empty.
Which gets us back to these are not clueless people. They have to know. Pan if he had any practice at all with vaccinating children has to know before he entered politics.
I guess the bottom line is really they are just wolves preying on clueless believing people that thinks vaccines - well they want to believe that vaccines work. I know- I have to give myself this talk a lot or I would believe they have some agenda - other than what they have. But the truth is that is all it is.
They have a product to sell that the population thinks they can't do without. They are getting tons of money for that product and they are doing all they can to keep selling it and selling more of it.
And as for the sheep; Vaccines do work. I mean they seem to work enough to fool us. I think they change the nature of the disease. I thought mine never had measles or mumps, but there was some strange breaking out with huge knots like I had never seen before, Kawasakis, and I had never heard of Roseolia - I still don't even know how to spell it
There is no chicken pox anymore but there is the hand foot disease.
There is no polio but there is a dozen diseases that has to do with paralysis.
I got to get out right now to my parents and get Dad up and dressed from his Parkinson which I suspect came from a few years in a roll of flu shots. But who cares he is 92 now.
Is that right? Better than the epidemic of alzeiheimers and dementia.
.
Posted by: Benedetta | December 16, 2016 at 10:35 AM
Note on privatization of prisons, prisons became so profitable (from what I understand) because of government contracts guaranteeing taxpayer (so this was/is actually a "private-government" partnership, a lot like Gardasil with government mandates, I think) funded coverage per prisoner (above what it was costing the state and federal prisons at the time) and intentional provision of occupants (prisoner transfers and three strikes you're out type mandatory sentencing laws) to these particular prisons (cronyism) causing stocks values to soar when politically expedient, etc. I think quotas and kick-backs incentivized arrests and imprisonment more readily and for longer sentencing also, and the "war on drugs" criminalized non-violent behavior. I understand some of these "privatized" programs are now being cut because the U.S. government can't afford to keep people locked up (and not paying taxes) at several times what they would pay otherwise (though I understand the slave labor has been useful for the military as well as some corporations)...and these developments (privatized prisons and the federal drug war) also destroyed the value of many neighborhoods (and contributed to the mortgage crisis) which were then bought up cheap making more money for some, especially those who understood the agendas.
Something the same might be possible with children flagged as not receiving "appropriate" care (maybe via brain scans indicating developmental problems that are possibly because the mother is "not interacting appropriately"--the video linked in my last comment is haunting me) then assigned to "appropriate" facilities with taxpayer dollars providing them "optimal" implants, devices, and pharmaceuticals or whatever (at uncompetitive pricing of course, making more profits for stockholders, etc), though I'm not sure how much wealth/health there is left in the state/U.S. citizenry to fund widespread institutionalization. IMO more and more families otherwise will be increasingly expected to buy into everything required by the corporate state with fewer and fewer choices that they can actually afford to make, especially when some of the non-choices end up being severely devastating to their child's health (in complete violation of all tenets of this "bill of rights") and then their remaining wealth. Is this the free-range imprisonment/slave labor/family destruction model?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 16, 2016 at 03:28 AM
Insel at Childx (seriously?!?) Conference ("Childx is a dynamic, TED-style conference designed to inspire innovation that improves pediatric and maternal health."):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPvep872peM
Graph @ 4:00 "...when you look at the life-course of this (mental and behavioral disorders)... they are clearly the most disabling early in life...before age 50, the disability from mental disorders are greater than all other disorders combined..."
However did this come to be? (sarcasm--you don't want to do that vax vs. unvax study for sure, Dr. Insel!)
And how much technological intervention for all this might be essentially mandated by measures such as SB18?
@6:25 highest bars at age 13 - "the right to social and emotional well-being"
@7:25 Mandated gene sequencing as part of appropriate care determining appropriate care from as early as the womb, maybe ready to be implemented right after the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth?
Will it even be deemed "appropriate" to allow an individual that appears susceptible to something such as autism (or already poisoned via prenatal vaccines, etc. if they learn to ID when that might be the case) to be born?
16:20 "Mother-infant interactions can alter the pathways..." so lets mandate scans of infant (and possibly older children's) brains, to see if they have "appropriate" interactions? Is a monolingual or bi-lingual environment most "optimal?"
19:20 - So this is what he meant by the biological-based approaches to "mental health" Insel talked about when criticizing current mental health approaches? Technologically ID problems and then maybe start "treating" earlier?
24:00 devices - never mind the risks of blue-tooth and smart technology... Google Glass prothetic for autism (if the state says it's "appropriate" for "optimal" development....)... tracking mental health via "smart" phones
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 16, 2016 at 01:33 AM
Possibly an example of what motivations behind SB18 might be, from March this year (regarding Verily, brief mentionings of Tom Insel):
https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/28/google-life-sciences-exodus/
"Google’s brash attempt to revolutionize medicine as it did the Internet is facing turbulence, and many leaders who launched its life sciences startup have quit, STAT has found."
...
"Verily, one of Google’s “moonshots,” pursues ambitious, even radical, ideas that could take years to pay off. " (SB 18 is supposed to go into effect by 2022 I think?)
...
"Verily recently announced that it will soon trade the tranquil water features and shade trees of a satellite Google campus in Mountain View for a fortress-like cluster of buildings near the San Francisco airport that can accommodate a workforce of 1,000 — more than double the company’s current size."
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 16, 2016 at 12:48 AM
From Jon Rappoport:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/bombshell-sacrificing-children-to-the-state-of-california-sb18/
"The Peninsula Partnership is a group organized within the San Mateo County Office of Education. One piddling little California county education department.
"The Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council (PPLC) is composed of the San Mateo County Superintendent of Schools, the County Board of Supervisors and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.
"And now we hit pay dirt: THE SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION."
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 15, 2016 at 11:30 PM
The private prison industry has been expanding beyond juvenile detention and has been investing in private adoption and foster care corporations for many years. Someone very intelligent asked me how in the world CA could possibly get the resources to grab up, warehouse and manage all the kids of noncompliant families. The answer: the same way the US got to be ranked #1 in the world for number of prisoners. Prisons became a profitable industry.
I'm now starting to wonder which industry is leading and which is scavenging from this legislative coup d'etat. If you fully vaccinate a child to age 18, the profits to industry and pediatricians are to the tune of several thousand dollars if you include payments for visits, drugs or even the backend profits that arise from the child's increasing health and behavior issues. It's good money and adds up. But what about the outliers and refusers? The same child could make the state and private foster care or adoption corporations $47,000 just for the first placement, far more over a lifetime if they're put in the prison pipeline. Plus-- bonus-- you still get the shot and backend "failing health" profits since wards of the state cannot refuse vaccines.
On that model, it might pay to add increasingly goofy shots to the schedule that even current vaccine-loyalists might start to balk at. A shot for dandruff, vaccines for acne, etc. Just saying.
Posted by: bad to worse | December 12, 2016 at 05:53 PM
Jeannette
Perhaps an open immigration policy: We are all immigrants" We have heard chanted at us for the last 30 or 40 years is really a policy of getting in new test subjects.
Well, that is what I think at times in the dark wee hours of night when I have not slept in a couple of days. Much like what you are thinking now.
Use to be big pharma were not so lazy that they were willing to go all the way down to South American and pretend that measles has not come to some remote jungle tribe. They could test those vaccines on them. Not so remote would be the North East Brazil population they have to play with, unless this DPT vaccine to all pregnant women policy Ohhhhh silly me - I meant the zika virus has not been the last nail in the coffin after the bad meningitis causing MMR that was passed off on them. .
Maybe they could just go down to Mexico instead? Shorter distance? Nope, the whole town they tested their vaccines on - noticed their kids dying, and it ended up in the news.
Looks like they long finished cleaning up all the Irish poor and improvised orphans. The population just dropped too low after they got done over there. Now that the population is coming back, they seemed to notice things like girls getting sick from the HPV vaccine. .
Perhaps Africa - what of Africa yeah, it has always been a good continent for them; from the time of the first development of the polio vaccine that probably was the start of AIDS, to recent being caught with tainted tetanus vaccine with birth controlled hormone vaccine,. But darn the wold seems to be noticing, why they even noticed that t kids were falling asleep with some form of narcolepsy when they tried to eat, and even out right killing/ paralyzing them . The governments of Africa have wised up, and are becoming unfriendly.
"Constant Gardener " indeed!
Besides it is so war torn it is dangerous , best to get the US government to let a large group from Somalia in and use them as guinea pigs. That might be the best way to go. .
. India would be great, they have a big population there, and poor; no one would care. Except theu did and Gates is being sued. LOL.
Gee the world might be getting to be too small for big pharma.
You just might be correct!
Posted by: Benedetta | December 12, 2016 at 12:40 AM
There's so much room for disturbing imagination in this "legislation," but assuming that each enumerated line has a typical corporatocratic (?word) purpose (generally I'm thinking that's something to create mandated markets while increasing control to maintain and create more markets), ...this still has a lot of room for disturbing imagination.
I've been hearing the term "transhumanism" referenced enough that, even though I've pretty consciously avoided really coming to understand what it is all about, I'm thinking I might see an agenda to acquire access to children in a way that could promote something in line with that term.
And aren't there a lot of biotech companies in California?
SB 277 says the health department (or something like it) can determine what vaccine and what vaccine components should be given to meet the law requirements, and the original bill included an open ended mandate (still does for everyone who won't know they still have, for now, a partial exemption option) for new vaccines. I wondered if some view the childhood population of California as prime candidates for new vaccine trials (and now maybe other products) and wanted this legislation as a way to mandate participation while at it (they weren't above testing a high titer measles vaccine with risk of death in the 90s here and with so many "vaccines" in the works how are they going to get those tested in the "third world"--if we're not entering into third world status ourselves)?
So, how many invasive implants, surveillance devices, as well as pharmaceuticals and common core educational (with intensive electronic record keeping) components, even healthcare and other consumer "choices" might this bill force or direct for any child/parent/family that gets pinged for being in need of state intervention in some way or other for "optimization" or "appropriatization?" of something or other, just to keep their child with them? What will it matter if there is a provision for a vaccination exemption on new vaccines in SB 277? Won't using it essentially ping the system? If this bill even permitted a homeschooling choice (which I don't think it will), wouldn't it require the same record keeping (including vaccination/"health" status), surveillance of the process, and essentially assign an "equal" and "appropriate" curriculum?
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | December 11, 2016 at 08:28 PM
Not to downplay the terrible nature of SB277, this bill is much more sinister. It essentially entails a declaration of ownership over children by the state, relegating parents to the role of provisional administrators of state-approved choices. Trying times we live in.
Posted by: Stan K. | December 10, 2016 at 09:16 AM
Jenny Allan,
“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”
In school during the Cold War, that is exactly what we were taught the Russians were doing. This is the method we were taught the Russians used to keep control over the population - by brainwashing the children and by turning them against the morals and traditions of their families, by making their allegiance and obedience to the State and by making them reliant on the State instead of their family. The State becomes the authority, the expert, the last word in all decisions. There is absolutely no difference between what we are seeing in California and what we were told Communist countries were doing then. No difference.
Posted by: Linda1 | December 09, 2016 at 02:40 PM
Children's Bill of Wrongs!
Posted by: annie | December 09, 2016 at 02:10 PM
This sounds chillingly similar to the proposed 'Named Person' legislation in Scotland, which recently lost a Supreme Court appeal against its implementation, brought by a grassroots resistance group. This would have given a state appointee the power to usurp parental autonomy in raising their children. Amongst a huge list of so called 'child wellbeing' indicators was child vaccines, stated as a 'must'. ( In the UK child vaccines are presently a parental choice'.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/28/supreme-court-blocks-snps-controversial-named-person-scheme/
Supreme Court blocks SNP's controversial 'named person' scheme
From above:-
"The judgment emphasises the importance of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - on the right to a private and family life - and in a withering passage states: “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”
The Supreme Court reference to a 'totalitarian regime' should serve as a warning to the people of California. Both Scotland, and California are supposed to be run as DEMOCRACIES. In Scotland 'people power' has won this battle , but ONLY via the Supreme Court Judges. Our elected representatives refused to listen to Scottish parents' concerns.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | December 09, 2016 at 12:44 PM
You people are just not getting it. Clinton actually monetized the removal of children from their homes in 1997. You have to ask yourself why would they do this. Predatory? Check.
Posted by: @Linda1 | December 09, 2016 at 11:33 AM
Jim Thompson | December 09, 2016 at 06:41 AM
Did you ever listen to the Richard Day Diaries from 1969 – you might find it an eye opener .
They talk about altering previous historical texts to change or soften their meaning .
http://100777.com/nwo/barbarians
Msg to Senator Pan - do not forget your annual flu shot . EVER .
Posted by: Hans Litten | December 09, 2016 at 11:20 AM
How about the right to be raised by their parents, to not be drugged, to not be experimented on, to be protected from medical kidnapping?
Is "appropriate quality health care" the same health care that is the 3rd leading cause of death in this country? Is that what Pan wants to secure government funding to provide to California's children? Funding that will go directly to his own industry? Legislation that will act to guarantee a steady flow of customers for his cronies?
Notice that the bill doesn't mention the parents. Not only parents' rights, but parents' health and access to welfare services, health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, and education. He's just interested in the children. The parents' needs and situation are not his concern. Interesting that his focus is not on families. That's because Pan is a predator. Pan is a child predator. If this bill was to help families that are in need of shelter, food, health care, rehab and education for job training, that would be different, wouldn't it? That's not what it's about. It an authoritarian move intended to seize the children and to separate them from their parents. The parents are a problem to be dealt with. Pan wants control of the children.
Look around the world. It isn't too hard to see what's happening. America is not immune to the rise of dictators within our borders. Our system of checks and balances is not working. It has been corrupted and this is the result.
I'm so aggravated this morning that I'm tempted to say let those who want to be ruled by Pan and his idiot cronies secede and have their own country. It will be a relief to to be rid of them. Let them have their Communist California. Or cut California in half and let the idiots who want to live under this kind of dictatorship where children get drugged and vaccinated at school, have their way. For this to even get this far is beyond unbelievable. It's enough. To hell with these idiots.
Posted by: Linda1 | December 09, 2016 at 08:42 AM
More BS from the utterly clueless Pan. Thank God for term limits!
Posted by: Gary Ogden | December 09, 2016 at 08:15 AM
George Orwell described the term “newspeak version” as follows. “The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron - they'll exist only in newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be.” Orwell 1984.
In terms of vaccinations this “newspeak” bill SB18 takes children under the custody of the "state" and removes their “rights” to be protected by their parents. No worries by the “state” about parents' rights to informed consent as consent will not exist.
Posted by: Jim Thompson | December 09, 2016 at 06:41 AM