<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	>

<channel>
	<title>vaccine &#8211; CalWatchdog.com</title>
	<atom:link href="https://calwatchdog.com/tag/vaccine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://calwatchdog.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:27:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">43098748</site>	<item>
		<title>Vaccine bill passes Assembly health committee</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2015/06/10/vaccine-bill-passes-assembly-health-committee/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josephine Djuhana]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vaccine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SB277]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory vaccination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[herd immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal belief exemption]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calwatchdog.com/?p=80801</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[On Tuesday, the California Assembly Committee on Health passed Senate Bill 277, the controversial mandatory vaccination bill. The bill was passed on a 12-6 vote, with one vote not recorded.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/vaccine.jpg"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-80803" src="http://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/vaccine-300x214.jpg" alt="vaccine" width="300" height="214" srcset="https://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/vaccine-300x214.jpg 300w, https://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/vaccine.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></a>On Tuesday, the California Assembly Committee on Health <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> Senate Bill 277, the controversial mandatory vaccination bill. The bill was passed on a 12-6 vote, with one vote not recorded.</p>
<p>According to a summary from the health committee, SB277:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Eliminates non-medical exemptions from the requirement that children receive vaccines for certain infectious diseases prior to being admitted to any public or private elementary or secondary school, or day care center. Specifically, this bill:</p>
<ol>
<li>&#8220;Deletes the exemption based on personal beliefs from the existing immunization requirement for children in child care and public and private schools. Deletes related law requiring a form to accompany a personal belief exemption (PBE).</li>
<li>&#8220;Exempts students enrolled in home-based private schools or in an independent study program from the existing immunization requirement.</li>
<li>&#8220;Permits the California Department of Public Health (DPH) to add diseases to the immunization requirements only if exemptions are allowed for both medical reasons and personal beliefs.&#8221;</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>Assemblyman Devon Mathis, who has been a vocal critic of SB277, said in a prepared statement, “This bill, and my opposition, is not about vaccines, it is about combating an overreaching government from infringing on our Constitutional Rights, Parental Rights, Religious Freedoms and protect the relationship between the patient and their chosen medical professional.”</p>
<p>Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who voted yes on SB277 in the health committee vote, <a href="https://twitter.com/LorenaAD80/status/608449555642871808" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a> on Tuesday:</p>
<blockquote><p>“<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SB277?src=hash" target="_blank" rel="noopener">#SB277</a> passes the Assembly Health Committee, 12-6. Proud to have voted AYE for science and children&#8217;s health. Next stop, Assembly floor.”</p></blockquote>
<p>The bill now goes to the Assembly for consideration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">80801</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mandated vaccination bill advances</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2015/05/06/vaccine-exemption-ban-advances/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James Poulos]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2015 13:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Breaking News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Pan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vaccinations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Poulos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Allen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immunization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vaccine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SB 277]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calwatchdog.com/?p=79653</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[After a surprisingly fierce challenge from anti-vaccine advocates, Sacramento legislators worried about the language of the landmark new vaccination bill have succeeded in crafting a passable draft. As CalWatchdog reported]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/vaccine121014.jpg"><img decoding="async" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-74079" src="https://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/vaccine121014-294x220.jpg" alt="vaccine121014" width="294" height="220" /></a>After a surprisingly fierce challenge from anti-vaccine advocates, Sacramento legislators worried about the language of the landmark new vaccination bill have succeeded in crafting a passable draft.</p>
<p>As CalWatchdog <a href="http://calwatchdog.com/2015/04/17/ca-vaccine-bill-placed-in-intensive-care/">reported</a> previously, supporters of SB 277 discovered that its original wording could be interpreted as unconstitutionally depriving some children of an education.</p>
<p>Last month, the ACLU began raising the constitutional alarm. <span class="s1">Kevin G. Baker, legislative director of the ACLU of California&#8217;s Center for Advocacy and Policy, wrote the bill&#8217;s sponsors to suggest some possible alternatives, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-vaccination-bill-20150424-column.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to the Los Angeles Times: </span></p>
<blockquote><p><em>&#8220;<span class="s1">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.</span>&#8220;</em></p></blockquote>
<p>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 &#8220;would eliminate personal belief and religious exemptions for vaccines, and unvaccinated children could not attend public or private school in California,&#8221; as the San Jose Mercury News <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_28007382/california-vaccine-legislation-advances-senate-judiciary-committee" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>. Students barred from school attendance would, under the bill&#8217;s requirements, be homeschooled.</p>
<h3>Narrow changes, big consequences</h3>
<p>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 <a href="http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2015/4/27/aclu-calif-vaccine-bill-violates-constitutional-right-to-education" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that one new provision allowed them to &#8220;enroll in private home-schooling programs that serve multiple families, rather than programs that serve just one family,&#8221; while another enabled them to &#8220;[p]articipate in independent study projects that are overseen by school districts but do not include classroom time.&#8221;</p>
<p>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 &#8220;to include a new provision that would limit vaccinations to only those 10 vaccines currently required by California Department of Public Health,&#8221; according to the Bee. &#8220;Parents would be allowed to obtain a personal belief exemption for any vaccine added in the future.&#8221; Under state law, the personal belief exemption has been understood to encompass the religious belief exemption.</p>
<p>Although the changes impacting private schooling and independent study made the more immediate difference in terms of the bill&#8217;s prospects, the vaccine-limiting provision carried much greater legal significance. Critics of the bill had argued strenuously against eliminating California&#8217;s religious and personal belief exemptions altogether, without regard to changes in medical opinion or future legislative requirements.</p>
<h3>More hurdles</h3>
<p>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. &#8220;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,&#8221; <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/California-school-immunization-bill-passes-key-6216809.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to the San Francisco Chronicle. &#8220;Several lawmakers said they would like to see more school options for those who aren’t immunized, other than home school and independent study.&#8221;</p>
<p>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. &#8220;The five Democrats on the committee,&#8221; however, &#8220;are either supporters of the bill or have previously voted in favor of it.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">79653</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: calwatchdog.com @ 2026-04-20 22:45:47 by W3 Total Cache
-->