“It’s a lack of respect,” House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi said of why Republicans continue to press for restrictions on reproductive rights and undermine what she described as “choice issues.” “Respect for our judgment, our dignity, respect for our sentiment of responsibility.”

Yet, marginalized activists who support maintaining a personal belief exemption from mandatory vaccinations say that Democratic lawmakers aren’t respecting their right to choose. Opponents of Senate Bill 277 protested outside of the Anaheim Convention Center Saturday, with homemade signs and loud chants echoing the party’s position on health choice. Rather than gain acceptance from a party that champions marginalized groups, opponents of SB277 found themselves facing derisive comments from convention delegates.

“They (California Democrats) are definitely being hypocritical on this issue,” said Aaron Mills, a member of the California Coalition for Health Choice. “Democrats usually champion for the minorities. When it comes to this group, it’s “just go away and stop complaining.”

He added, “You can’t force somebody to take a product with known risks. … I don’t really feel compelled to vaccinate my day-old infant for a sexually transmitted disease.”

SB277: Reframing the debate

The debate over California’s immunization requirements began in January, following a measles outbreak at Disneyland, which coincidentally is just down the block from this weekend’s convention. As of March, California public health officials had confirmed 133 measles cases since December, according to National Public Radio.

The Disneyland measles outbreak encouraged Senator Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, to introduce SB277, a bill to end the personal belief exemption which gives parents the power to opt-out of mandatory vaccinations for schoolchildren.

For months, opponents of the legislation have stumbled in their public rhetoric and legislative strategy. Some of the bill’s opponents tracked – arguably stalked – a lobbyist throughout the Capitol. Lawmakers and their staff members were inconvenienced by lengthy committee hearings. This past Thursday, the bill passed the state Senate on a 25-10 vote, with only two Democrats opposed.

However, at this weekend’s California Democratic Party state convention, concerned parents refined their argument to a message of choice.

“Are you aware that California Senate Bill 277 is moving its way through legislation right now that will remove your right to choose on vaccines?” reads a flyer distributed by protestors. “Where there’s a risk, there must be choice!”

Another handout asks, “Are California Democrats a party of choice or force?”

Both of those messages mirror the words of the California Democratic Party’s official platform, which states, “We proudly and vigorously support a woman’s right to choose how to use her mind, her body and her time.”

Democratic Senators prioritize public safety over choice

State Senator Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, a principal co-author of the bill, has argued that public safety should trump choice.

“The high number of unvaccinated students is jeopardizing public health not only in schools but in the broader community,” Allen said in a press release earlier this year.” We need to take steps to keep our schools safe and our students healthy.”

Allen’s arguments don’t sit well with some Democrats, who see it as government intervening in their personal health decisions.

“Never in a million years did I think my fellow Democrats would vote to take away my constitutional rights as a parent,” read one Democratic woman’s homemade sign. “Vaccination decisions are between a parent and their doctor, not the government. Opposition to SB277 will not go away even if it passed.”

During Saturday’s rally, supporters of the personal belief exemption chanted, ” We’re not going away! We’re not going away!” Yet, some Republicans are hoping that the issue could drive parents to leave the Democratic Party. A few members of the California Republican Assembly set up a table near the rally with a sign indicating their support for parental rights.

SB277 Opponents: Don’t call us anti-vaxxers

In addition to their frustration with Democrats abandoning “choice,” opponents of SB277 say that the party’s elected officials are being disrespectful to their cause by using the pejorative term, “anti-vaxxer.”

“This media stigma that is attached to it,” Mills, a member of the Democratic Party and opponent of mandatory vaccination, explained why he objected to the term. “It might be the most loathed group in the country. It’s definitely a minority group that no one looks fondly upon.”

According to Google search trends, there has been a dramatic spike in use of the term since the Disneyland measles outbreak. So, what should people call them?

“We’re not anti-anything,” Mills said. “We’re for health choice.”

California Democratic Party: Health Choice Rally

As CalWatchdog reported previously, supporters of SB 277 discovered that its original wording could be interpreted as unconstitutionally depriving some children of an education.

Last month, the ACLU began raising the constitutional alarm. Kevin G. Baker, legislative director of the ACLU of California’s Center for Advocacy and Policy, wrote the bill’s sponsors to suggest some possible alternatives, according to the Los Angeles Times: 

“In his letter, Baker suggested that a 16-month-old state law, AB 2109, should be given more of a chance to work before taking such a drastic step. That legislation requires health professionals to discuss the benefits and risks of immunization with parents before they are allowed to file belief exemptions, and it has already led to an increase in vaccination rates.“

Lawmakers, however, did not respond. Rather than taking such a circuitous path, they focused on honing SB 277 to a point where the force of the constitutional objections could simply be blunted. The core provisions of SB 277 went unchanged as legislators retooled its language. Co-authored by state Sens. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, and Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, the bill “would eliminate personal belief and religious exemptions for vaccines, and unvaccinated children could not attend public or private school in California,” as the San Jose Mercury News noted. Students barred from school attendance would, under the bill’s requirements, be homeschooled.

Narrow changes, big consequences

To evade the possibility of selective educational discrimination, however, Pan and Allen rewrote the bill to permit broader access to educational resources for unvaccinated kids. Summarizing the changes, California Healthline reported that one new provision allowed them to “enroll in private home-schooling programs that serve multiple families, rather than programs that serve just one family,” while another enabled them to “[p]articipate in independent study projects that are overseen by school districts but do not include classroom time.”

Moreover, a small but significant carve-out was created to allay some persistent concerns about the scope of legislative authority over vaccination. Legislators tweaked the bill “to include a new provision that would limit vaccinations to only those 10 vaccines currently required by California Department of Public Health,” according to the Bee. “Parents would be allowed to obtain a personal belief exemption for any vaccine added in the future.” Under state law, the personal belief exemption has been understood to encompass the religious belief exemption.

Although the changes impacting private schooling and independent study made the more immediate difference in terms of the bill’s prospects, the vaccine-limiting provision carried much greater legal significance. Critics of the bill had argued strenuously against eliminating California’s religious and personal belief exemptions altogether, without regard to changes in medical opinion or future legislative requirements.

More hurdles

Although SB 277 in amended form has now cleared the Senate Education Committee and will find stronger support as it heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee, further changes were predicted before its final form takes shape. “Several senators said additional amendments will likely be needed as the bill moves forward to ensure that unvaccinated kids are not denied the education guaranteed to them by the California Constitution,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “Several lawmakers said they would like to see more school options for those who aren’t immunized, other than home school and independent study.”

Additionally, the Chronicle reported, the bill may need approval by the Senate Appropriations Committee before moving to the full Senate, and requires five affirmative votes in the Judiciary Committee to proceed. “The five Democrats on the committee,” however, “are either supporters of the bill or have previously voted in favor of it.”