School Vaccine Exemptions Under SB277

April 2017
by Greg Glaser, Attorney at Law

I help moms & dads & doctors understand and protect their rights under the new California vaccine law, SB277.

SB277 is a terrible law that needs to be repealed immediately.   Does government really have the authority to require that your child be injected with a drug in order to receive an education?   The answer is no.  But I am a constitutional lawyer, so perhaps I do not understand the constitution as well as the pharmaceutical industry.

But I digress.  SB277 is the enacted law, so as a lawyer I do have to deal with it.  Therefore, here is what you need to know as a parent to protect your family:

The Basics

First, SB277 applies to public & private schools from daycare through grade 12.

Second, under SB277, medical exemptions are always valid.  A medical exemption signed by a licensed physician does not need to be on file by December 31, 2015.  You can put it on file anytime.  A medical exemption does not expire upon reaching a checkpoint year.  It only expires if and when the doctor says it expires in his or her medical judgment.

Third, under SB277 religious and personal beliefs exemptions are only allowed for students who had a religious or personal beliefs exemption sent to (or filed with) any CA school by December 31, 2015. But even then, upon reaching a check-point year (Kindergarten & 7th Grade), the religious and personal beliefs exemptions are no longer valid, except… medical exemptions are ALWAYS valid.

SB277 FAQ

Q: Is it difficult to qualify for a medical exemption in CA?

A: It depends on the circumstances. There is growing awareness among physicians, especially “integrative physicians”, that vaccines are not safe for everyone. For example, there is certain information you can provide your doctor and certain tests and indicators that a doctor can look for during a consultation to determine if your family members are at a higher risk of complication with vaccination, such as allergies, a history of autoimmune disease, and previous vaccine reactions in the family.  Different doctors will naturally come to different opinions, so it naturally makes sense to choose your doctor carefully.  Choosing an “integrative physician” is likely the smartest choice, because they tend to be the most aware, most informed, and most-conscious of vaccine risks.


Q:  Does the doctor who writes the medical exemption need to be my child’s primary care physician?

A: No, you can separately hire a physician (M.D. or D.O.) o to evaluate your child regarding risks of vaccination, and to write a medical exemption letter.  This is called ‘getting a second opinion’ or ‘seeking complementary medical care’.   You can do it right now – type a google search for a ‘holistic M.D.’ or ‘integrative physician’ in your area.   Skip the search results that point you to hospital doctors; rather, just look for M.D.s and D.O.s who work in clinics and who demonstrate on their websites that they are holistically-minded.  Make an appointment for your child to see the holistically-minded physician.  At the appointment, be prepared to pay the clinic out-of-pocket if necessary (a doctor’s appointment only costs approximately $200).  Be prepared to speak with the doctor intelligently about your family’s history of specific factors that support a medical exemption. Tell the doctor why a medical exemption is important to you.  As they say, ‘talk to your doctor’.

Remember: your child’s medical exemption is a private and confidential medical record, so when you request & receive it from your doctor, please don’t broadcast it on Facebook etc.   Moreover, you need to tell your holistically-minded doctor that you understand that it’s a private and confidential medical record, and that you will not discuss it on social media.  You should only share the private record with the child’s school for purposes of compliance with SB277.  It is your choice whether to share the letter with your child’s primary care physician.  You are not required to do so.

Q: Who can write a medical exemption in CA?

A:  For SB277 purposes, only a licensed physician can write a medical exemption, which means only an M.D. or a D.O. can write one.  A naturopathic doctor (N.D.) cannot write a medical exemption.  Nor can a chiropractor write a medical exemption.

Q: What is the legal standard for a medical exemption in CA?

A:  The statute reads, “120370.  (a) If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325, but excluding Section 120380) and Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415 to the extent indicated by the physician’s statement.”

Q: What is the interpretation of that legal standard for a medical exemption in CA?

A:  No one knows for sure.  The American Academy of Pediatrics and California Academy of Family Physicians recently issued an optional form (click here to view) for doctors that is deferential to the doctor’s judgment.  Indeed, that is precisely what is known about the new section 120370 (in SB277) — it is more deferential to the physician than the old section 120370.  For example, the old section 120370 used the phrase “contraindicate immunization”, and did not have the phrase, “including, but not limited to, family medical history”.  So the new 120370 should be interpreted favorably for both a doctor’s judgment and a patient’s rights, because it puts the focus on what “the physician does not recommend” rather than on specific ‘contraindications’.  This trusts the physician’s overall judgment and assessment rather than contraindications admitted by the vaccine manufacturer.  Moreover, the new law leaves expressly open to the doctor’s judgment what suffices as a patient’s qualifying “medical condition or circumstances”.

Q: Where can I read SB277?

A: Click here.  SB277 amended the California Health & Safety Code Sections 120325, 120335, 120370, and 120375, and added Section 120338, and repealed Section 120365.

Q: Will a child’s religious/personal beliefs exemption transfer from school-to-school when he/she changes schools?

A: Yes, schools are required to accept exemptions on file at other schools. But a school transfer does not trump a check-point year.

Q: Are schools required to accept a valid religious/personal beliefs exemption in 2016 and future years?

A: Only if it was submitted or on file at the child’s current or previous school since December 31, 2015.  And again, the check point year trumps the personal belief exemption.

Q: Are vaccines good for everyone?

A:  Vaccines are literally “drugs”. I am not a doctor. But I think vaccines should only be for people who desire to inject themselves with drugs.  I agree with the doctors who say that clean living & natural immunity & wholesome food & traditional care is good for us. Ultimately, the reason that people hand over their children to the injections of the pharmaceutical industry is because of fear. Is that fear warranted? I don’t think so.  I think we should strive toward developing natural immunity and intelligent natural remedies.

Q: Do vaccine exemptions harm the public?

A:  I don’t think so. Countless public health scholars, historians, and legal scholars have shown that forcefully medicating the public does not serve the public interest, but rather creates distrust and fear of both doctors and hospitals.  Today, approximately 80-90% of parents choose to vaccinate their children (some vaccines have a higher rate than others). The pharmaceutical industry is dominating the populace.

It seems to me there are thousands (even millions) of infectious deadly diseases on earth, and vaccines do not save me or the world from them. As for the approximately ten infectious diseases (many of which are quite mild) that were conveniently dubbed ‘vaccine-preventable’, there are nationally collected statistics that rebut the pharmaceutical claim that vaccines are the touted ‘saviors of the world’:

Q: Should it be a crime to be natural?

A: Absolutely not! Eventually, history will judge the pharmaceutical industry and its drug pushers very harshly for trying to force their super-sized-fits-all approach on the public. But in the meantime, the general public lines up to inject children with vaccine cocktails containing shocking ingredients that traditional doctors and families would never have dreamed of injecting into a human being; injections that bypass normal immune channels (i.e., respiratory, digestive).

Q: Do homeschoolers need a medical exemption under SB277?

A: Fortunately, homeschoolers do not need a medical exemption.  Unfortunately, debt and social norms make this option challenging or unavailable for most people.  Sometimes the toughest choices that life presents us are the ones closest to home.


Greg Glaser, Attorney at Law
(925) 642-6651
greg@gregglaser.com

New Petition Announced This Month To Close Two Loopholes Allowing Forced Medication and Quarantine

(NaturalNews) In December of 2011, Natural News was the first news organization to report a major loophole in American emergency laws – the loophole gives public health authorities ambiguous discretion to forcefully separate parents and their children during emergencies, and then vaccinate the children: Loophole in Vaccine Law, by Greg Glaser (November 2011).

Fortunately today, two health freedom attorneys for the Pandemic Response Project (PReP) are working to close this loophole at the State level (starting in California) through a proposed new law called the Peaceful and Natural Dignity Act (PANDA). We are asking fellow health freedom supporters to watch our informative video and sign the petition at Change.org, to help us put the new proposed law before the California legislature for debate: Read and sign the health freedom petition.

In summary, the proposed PANDA law explicitly confirms the fundamental right of peaceful and non-incarcerated individuals and families to:

(a) Remain free of forced medical treatment during times of peace and emergency, and
(b) Self-quarantine on private property during times of emergency.

So PANDA would close two loopholes in California’s emergency response laws that threaten to: (1) quarantine and criminalize individuals for remaining un-medicated, and (2) strip families of custody rights for remaining un-medicated.

Apart from California, other States in the Union are also vulnerable to the same loopholes described above. Accordingly, the PReP attorneys hope to tailor a PANDA statute for each State.


Greg Glaser
(originally published on Natural News on December 20, 2013)

Potential loophole in vaccine law could mandate vaccines in children during declared emergency

(NaturalNews) In times of peace, every State in America allows exemptions from vaccines on religious, moral, and/or philosophical grounds, so vaccines are never technically mandatory. [1] Parents even have the power to assert the exemptions of their children. [2] The US government also admits that vaccine exemptions are available during both peacetime and during an emergency for parents and children alike. [3]

However, there is a potential loophole applied to children specifically that could theoretically be exploited by the powers-that-be. During an emergency, if a parent exercises a vaccine exemption, they can be placed into quarantine or isolation to ‘protect the public’. [4]

Once the parent is placed into quarantine/isolation, there is no guarantee that the unvaccinated parent and child will remain together in the same quarantine/isolation area (see legal citations below), so a parent can automatically lose his/her ability to provide guardianship to his/her minor children.

Thus, the children can become wards of the State upon a parent’s refusal to accept vaccination. And the State can be expected to vaccinate the children at its first opportunity, or put them in the care of a family member willing to vaccinate. [5]

In order to close this loophole and protect the right of children to be peacefully natural, States should do the following:

First, pass a clear law that parents in quarantine or isolation do not lose their fundamental parental rights to assert their child’s vaccine exemption.

Second, pass a clear law that during a declared emergency families shall be entitled to self-quarantine together by remaining on private property until cleared to leave by the family’s medical or naturopathic doctor.

Legal Overview Exposing the Loophole

Quarantine laws have traditionally been interpreted to be within the State police power to regulate “public health and safety.” [6]

Citizens can view the quarantine and isolation laws in their state by navigating to the table on State quarantine law provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures (2010). [7] In California, for example, the rules are very open-ended and therefore deferential to the State. [8]

According to a year 2010 law review article, “A search of California health codes and local ordinances shows that California merely grants health authorities the power to quarantine but does not implement a system of overseeing the quarantine process… In fact, similar to California, many states have historically lacked comprehensive quarantine procedures and developed their quarantine regulations on an ad hoc, disease-by-disease basis.” [9]

Importantly, States have also been passing provisions of the (military-sponsored) Model State Emergency Health Powers Act. [10] This Model Act contains no safeguards allowing parents to stay with their children during quarantine. Safeguards are limited and frequently ad hoc — historically, and also by some State statutes today, public health authorities have allowed families to quarantine together in certain instances — it appears to depend on the nature of the perceived threat. [11]

At the federal level, the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. section 264) and its CFR regulations (42 CFR parts 70 and 71) give the government wide discretion in quarantine powers. [12]

Even the hospital sector (which stands at the ready to implement public health orders) recognizes its role in separating and unifying parents. For example, according to the emergency response guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics (2009), hospitals should prepare “A plan that minimizes parent-child separation and includes system tracking of pediatric patients, allowing for the timely reunification of separated children with their families.” [13]

How comforting is this? Can we really expect unvaccinated (natural) children to be processed by the system of state and hospital control without being needled?

Indeed, in the midst of an emergency, just imagine the logistics of ensuring an unvaccinated child asserts his/her proper vaccine exemption throughout each stage in a quarantine processing. Medical professionals relying on government FAQ papers and Fact Sheets to understand their responsibilities during an emergency are likely to feel they have the power to vaccinate (and more) in the parents’ absence. [14]

End Notes

(1) See e.g., Vaccine Legal Exemptions, by Alan Phillips (2011). See also, Constitutional Law Analysis Memo on Forced Vaccination During Emergency, by Greg Glaser (October, 2010).

(2) Id.

(3) See e.g., Mandatory Vaccinations: Precedent and Current Laws, by Congressional Research Service (February 2011). See also, Glaser, supra.

(4) Id., Federal and State Quarantine and Isolation Authority, by Congressional Research Service (January 2007). A “quarantine” is either like ‘house arrest’ or a ‘concentration camp’ with others. By contrast, “isolation” is like a prison cell for one person.

(5) See e.g., California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 et seq.

(6) See e.g., Morgan’s L. & T.R. & S.S. Co. v. Bd. of Health (1886) 118 U.S. 455; Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. State Bd. of Health (1902) 186 U.S. 380.

(7) It appears noteworthy that the National Conference of State Legislatures highlights in terms of State power, “The parens patriae power is the power of the state to serve as guardian of persons under legal disability, such as juveniles or the insane. See Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 332 (1993) (‘[T]he state has a legitimate interest under its parens patriae powers in providing care to its citizens who are unable to care for themselves….’)”

(8) “Each health officer shall enforce all orders, rules, and regulations concerning quarantine or isolation prescribed or directed by the department.” Cal. Health and Safety Code section 120195. “Each health officer, whenever required by the department, shall establish and maintain places of quarantine or isolation that shall be subject to the special directions of the department. Cal. Health and Safety Code section 120200.

“A person subject to quarantine or strict isolation, residing or in a quarantined building, house, structure, or other shelter, shall not go beyond the lot where the building, house, structure, or other shelter is situated, nor put himself or herself in immediate communication with any person not subject to quarantine, other than the physician, the health officer or persons authorized by the health officer.” Cal. Health and Safety Code section 120225.

“All physicians, nurses, clergymen, attendants, owners, proprietors, managers, employees, and persons living with, or visiting any sick person, in any hotel, lodginghouse, house, building, office, structure, or other place where any person is ill of any infectious, contagious, or communicable disease, shall promptly report that fact to the health officer, together with the name of the person, if known, the place where he or she is confined, and the nature of the disease, if known.” Cal. Health and Safety Code section 120250.

(9) A History of Abuse and Lack of Protection: The Need to Update California’s Quarantine Powers In Light of the H1N1 Influenze Outbreak, by Arsen Kourinian, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 43:693 (2010).

For illustrative purposes, see also the “Procedures for isolation or quarantine” in the State of Washington: WAC 246-100-040. And see also this Massachusetts law, “The Department or local board of health may authorize physicians, health care workers, mental health workers, personal care attendants, parents or guardians of minor children, and others access to individuals in isolation or quarantine as necessary to meet the needs of isolated or quarantined individuals.” Massachusetts Reportable Diseases, Surveillance, and Isolation and Quarantine Requirements, 105 CMR 300.210(H)(2)(e).

(10) According to the quasi-military Center for Law and the Public’s Health, even as of 2006, “thirty-eight (38) states and the District of Columbia have passed sixty-six (66) bills that include provisions from or closely related to the Act. The extent to which the Act’s provisions were incorporated into each state’s laws varies.” Legislative Surveillance Table.

Regarding the military-industrial complex role in vaccines, see Constitutional Law Analysis Memo on Forced Vaccination During Emergency, by Greg Glaser (October, 2010).

(11) See e.g., Paula Mindes, Tuberculosis Quarantine: a Review of Legal Issues in Ohio and Other States, 10 Journal of Law and Health 403-418, 408-413, 418-423 (1995-96) (“The public health powers in state statutes include: compulsory examination and treatment, emergency detention and quarantine. Quarantine may be defined as either in-home isolation or commitment to state facilities. These measures are accomplished through public health orders or court orders. Some states have civil and/or criminal penalties for failing to comply with a such an order. Other statutes do not spell out penalties. Some statutes define which diseases are contagious and therefore subject to quarantine regulations. Others authorize state health departments to decide which illnesses are contagious. Some empower public health authorities to make quarantine or isolation decisions without any direction as to illnesses or conditions. Thirty-three states permit authorities to isolate people in their homes. In most cases there are no due process protections specified out in the law. Forty-two states permit commitment to treatment facilities. Thirty-six states require a court order to commit someone to a facility. Several do not require a court order or a hearing. Generally court orders will be initiated by a petition from public health authorities requesting a hearing. Written notice to the person concerned is usually required, but the hearing may be held with or without the patient. Only thirteen states explicitly grant the right to be represented by counsel in any part of the proceedings. Of these, eleven will provide counsel to indigent individuals. Release is accomplished when a determination is made that the person is no longer a threat to the public health, or no longer infectious. Some statutes specify criteria for release which may be vague (“no longer a danger to the public health”) or specific (evidence in sputum tests that the person is no longer actively contagious). Ten states have no statutory time limits on the length of time a patient may be held without discharge or recommitment. In many states the only explicit due process protection afforded persons who are quarantined is the opportunity to petition the court for release.”)

(12) See for example the FEMA guidelines, because as noted by the American Academy of Pediatrics in a letter to FEMA, dated November 9, 2007, “ESF #6 fails to address how it will support States or other entities in caring for children whose caregivers may be killed, ill, injured, missing, quarantined, or otherwise incapacitated for lengthy periods of time. Legal and other issues must be addressed in the case of children who may require non-family care for weeks or months, or who must be taken into the care of the State.” FEMA rejected this recommendation, as can be seen in both ESF #6 — Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services Annex (January 2008) and ESF #8 — Public Health and Medical Services Annex (January 2008).

(13) See, Emergency response guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics (2009).

(14) See e.g., Overcoming Legal Obstacles Involving the Voluntary Care of Children Who are Separated from their Parents During a Disaster. Journal of Pediatric Emergency Care, by Foltin G., et al (June 2008).


Greg Glaser
(originally published by Natural News on November 7, 2011)