Cali. SB 276 moves to eliminate physician medical exemptions, but hey numb nuts, there’s a reason they’re called “medical exemptions”

Cali. SB 276 moves to eliminate physician medical exemptions, but hey numb nuts, there’s a reason they’re called “medical exemptions”

Last night, March 25, 2019, California Senator Richard Pan’s office dropped his new bill, SB 276 correcting what he has described as the rampant unjustified/fraudulent medical vaccine exemptions being written by some physicians.

His solution is to have public health officers approve or reject medical exemption “requests” submitted by physicians. The bill also establishes the criteria for medical exemptions, and there’s no surprise here: CDC contraindications, roughly, the package insert contraindications for each vaccine.

I think that would make California the toughest state in the country to obtain medical exemptions, and perhaps the only state where exemptions are actually granted or denied by state officials (but more about that later).

Here is how the legislation is explained in the bill:

“This bill would . . .require the State Department of Public Health to develop and make available for use by licensed physicians and surgeons a statewide standardized medical exemption request form, which would be the only medical exemption documentation that a governing authority may accept.
The bill would require the State Public Health Officer or the public health officer’s designee to approve or deny a medical exemption request, upon determining that the request provides sufficient medical evidence that the immunization is contraindicated by guidelines of the federal Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).”
(emphasis added).

The bottom line is that under the bill, physicians no longer write medical exemptions; they fill out form applications/requests for a medical exemption which are decided by officials of the Department of Health, and only CDC contraindications will be accepted as a basis for a medical exemption.

Here is the bill:

But it gets better!

If you already have an exemption for your child, you need to submit a copy of it to state officials who will review the previously obtained exemption under the same CDC criteria, and they will revoke it unless it is consistent with CDC contraindications.

It is interesting to note that the contraindications standard for exemption writing was in the original SB 277, but it was eventually replaced with a more general standard including consideration of family history, probably due to public uproar and/or as a way to placate anyone with any concerns about vaccines.

Given all the recorded legislative history surrounding the passage of SB 277, it’s going to be interesting to see how Senator Pan and others explain away some of their past statements regarding the importance of family history in a vaccine exemption analysis, since it’s not really a big part of the CDC contraindications (and that’s an understatement).

My view is that practically speaking, if this becomes law, unless a child has had a documented prior serious adverse event (SAE) associated with a vaccine, there won’t be any type of medical exemption in that child’s future.

Furthermore, even for those with a prior documented SAE, the exemption will based on each vaccine’s contraindication, and the exemption will only cover the specific vaccine or vaccine group which was associated with the SAE. I don’t see how a healthy child would qualify for an exemption from all childhood vaccines throughout childhood, at least under the CDC contraindications.


There’s a problem which I’ll explain via a few riddles.

1. What do you call a state official who rejects a physician’s request for a medical exemption?

A future felon (or misdemeanant), unless he/she has a California medical license, because the decision to grant or deny a vaccine exemption is a
medical decision and medical decisions can only be made by physicians (or some other licensed health care practitioner operating within the scope
of practice of that license). Otherwise it’s the unauthorized practice of medicine which can either be a felony or a misdameanor. I know about this
becasue I’ve handled many of these cases, mostly in California. See Chapter 7 of Galileo’s Lawyer for one of them).

2. What do you call a state public health official with a California medical license who has denied 5,000 exemptions?

Two things:
A defendant in 5,000 medical malpractice lawsuits.
The subject of 5,000 medical board complaints for making a medical determination without a valid doctor/patient relationship which almost always
requires a face-
to-face patient encounter.

3. What do you call the many Deputy Attorney Generals representing these public health officials?

4. What’s a good descriptive name for SB 276?

The California Lawyers’ Full Employment Act of 2019.
(And that’s coming from a guy who mostly doesn’t believe in filing vaccine lawsuits. See
concerned-have- done-recently-or-maybe-ever/

Hey numb nuts, there’s a reason they’re called “medical exemptions.”

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

30 thoughts on “Cali. SB 276 moves to eliminate physician medical exemptions, but hey numb nuts, there’s a reason they’re called “medical exemptions”

  1. Interesting. If CA law requires a face-to-face encounter before a CA medical licensee can overturn a decision regarding vaccine exemption made by a patient’s own PCP, can this same law be used by citizens in cases against licensed insurance company representatives who deny coverage for care that is prescribed by these same PCP’s?
    In other words, are medical reviews tantamount to the practice of medicine in California?

  2. Package insert warnings are far more comprehensive than CDC contraindications. On the other hand, the CDC flags family immune system problems as a potential contraindication, which means what when 20% of the population has an immune system problem?
    Not to worry a technocrat will decide.

  3. How does this article’s view comport with West Virginia and Mississippee, who have these same laws on the books there, for a few years now? Wouldn’t they have been sued, by now?

    1. It’s still the law in WEst Virginia, but I think there the exemption is just reviewable by the department of health. If so, the Cali. bill is worse (and better per my post) because the doc just files a request and the public health official grants or denies it.

  4. Mr. Jaffe – are you saying if we have an ME and do nothing, it will stand? I’m confused by your last few comments because; 1). I live in CA, 2). we have a medical history of auto-immune disorders and vaccine injury within the family, so 3). My child is medically exempt, currently.

    Or are you saying even if this bill passes, there will be no way to enforce it? Won’t our children just be barred from school? Can you elaborate on the plausible outcomes of this bill passing? Because similar legislation just passed in OR? What are those parents to do?

    1. Sorry, but I’m not going to answer your specific question. But if the law passes, all current medical exemptions which extend beyond the school year will have to be submitted to the Department of Health and will be reviewed and continued or rescinded if the exemption would not have been granted under the CDC contraindication standard. My view or interpretation of the CDC’s position is that a healthy child who has not experienced a serious adverse event associated with a vaccine would not fall within the CDC guidelines, I think but for sure wouldn’t if the prior adverse reaction were not an immediate family member. I suspect there will be a documentation requirement as well, meaning there won’t be an exemption unless the prior serious adverse event was properly documented.

      what I’m saying is that under the bill, the department of health is going to review all existing medical exemptions (supposedly) and accept the ones that meet the CDC criteria and rescind the ones that don’t, meaning eventually those kids will not have a vaccine exemption.

  5. We live in CA and my children are now college age. One is conserved vaccine injured Autistic adult who will need life long care, at least at this point unless we can recover him further. He was fully vaccinated and hospitalized shortly after MMR at 14 months, them drooled, screamed, diagnosed with Autism. The other is a senior in high school who is hardly vaccinated. Both have what I thought were iron clad real science backed medical exemptions, about 17 pages each, of family history of autoimmune disease, medical history, health screening, genetic screening for risk factors known, which all indicate they are at high risk for complications from vaccines. I have no doubt we would have two Autistic adult children had we continued to vaccinate my second son. We have spent thousands gaining legitimate medical exemptions that will now most likely not meet the very narrow CDC criteria, which are not at all caught up to the facts of the real science. I am tired of fighting bill after bill and feel harassed and discriminated against by the state of California, Richard Pan, and the pro vaccine lobby and bought media. I want my constitution right to choose what is best for my family, on my own determination, or with a licensed MD, free from state interference. I want the right to medical informed consent without interference of any kind. My younger son is now trying to decide where to go for college, where he will be safe. Currently he is ok in UC and Cal State schools because of his medical exemption. And out of state he is ok because exemptions are still in place, but the landscape is changing with the legislation following the “measles outbreak” in Washington being used as an excuse to take away freedoms and impose between 69/74 vaccines on our children, and many universities are requiring dangerous vaccines like the meningitis vaccine which has much higher risks then meningitis itself. Those not complying with the CDC/government/pharma thugs are discriminated against and excluded from society, schools, playgroups, communities, the work place, public places effectively, in many cases. I don’t want him to start college and then have to leave the school or the state a year from now… in fact if he has to, they should refund his money, and it is coercion to then suddenly say he must get a long list of vaccines to stay enrolled, which has already been happening to others. Will it do any good to leave the state we have lived in our whole lives, all our friends, our employment? We are considering Texas for college, and even a possible move. Is Texas safe? Is the vaccine choice more protected there in TX, a state where rights and freedoms seem more important? I am also considering taking legal action against the state of California, Dr. Pan, the CDC, and the Pharma lobby, media, etc. and holding them accountable for the lies, the scientism/misinformation, the harassment, the corruption and collusion within our government and medical licensing board. I would welcome the chance to take those responsible for all this harassment and lawful descrimination through the real science and evidence in answer to each lie they have published. Is there a precedent? Is there a case?

    1. Short answer: No, you don’t have a case.
      I don’t know if California universities require the vaccination that’s required to for K-12 schools, but if they do, then your son should go to college in a different state.

      1. At the moment Cal State Universities allow all three exemptions, personal, religious, medical, though that could change at any time. University of Cal allow medical only, and that could change too apparently. In both Cal State and UC system some parents are getting the letters saying comply with all vaccine requirements now or leave as I have seen several such parents come to various online vaccine concerned groups for help either because they don’t want to comply, or they had complied and their child was sick/harmed. When we were conserving our Autistic son there was a Mom conserving her UCLA student/son because he had become bipolar schizophrenic and could no longer do UCLA…. hmm wonder why that happened, probably the vaccines he had to get to enroll? Many other stories of harm. There must be some way to fight back? How about civil damages? Pan said we would have medical exemptions, and I spent thousands on legitimate medical tests and two medical exemptions that will now be worthless based on narrow CDC criteria it appears? Is there no recourse? No legal copability? How about a University that accepts us and our medical exemption and then pulls the rug out from under us after a year and half a semester due to changing vaccination laws and policies. Can we pursue damages? Reimbursement of our tuition/expenses wasted?
        It seems unbelievable to me there is not a sound avenue to fight back against this type of tyranny. Yet I do see attempts so far have failed but they were taking a different tack and groups of people, not individuals? Can we file to have our case heard in a court outside California where we might get a fairer process? Or we have to wait until state review of medical exemtion and then take legal action against state review board for practicing medicine without a license or without seeing the patient themselves?

        1. Parents have to stick to their beliefs and not give in to this crazy unconstitutional bullying and manipulation of this government and senators and pharmaceutical companies
          Vaccines are poisonous to our bodies and we should have freedom of speech
          We have been deceived into getting vaccinated and not reading the ingredients that this vaccines have
          All bad and injuring and killing people

  6. This is a concern.

    I am wondering why we don’t have any Senators in California trying to protect parental rights and physician rights. I never see any bills pertaining to this issue. Or any bill pertaining to informed consent. I only see comments on the bills posted by Senators backed by Pharma. Why is there so much time spent responding to things he is creating. Where is the Senator jumping in to protect parental and physician rights? I know plenty of democrats who would back these bills.

    1. Yes good point. I think it is time we go on the offense. We can start by contacting all our CA representatives who might fight this by filing new legislation to protect us, protect parental rights, protect medical informed consent, abide by the constitution of the state and the USA.

  7. Can lawyers file (i don’t know the lawyer terms) to try to block this from being passed? Is there anything that you can do to help get this blocked? It is an assault on our basic civil liberties. It seems like it could also fall under segregation. He is targeting such a small percentage. By his own admission, only 1% of students in all of CA have medical exemptions. His all important 97% vaccination rate is at 99%. How can he be allowed to target the medically fragile kids?

    1. The only way to block the bill is by the political process, meaning contacting legislators and convincing them not to vote for it. Lawsuits do not stop legislators from doing the people’s business by passing laws, even laws that a minority of people think are unjust. If the bill is passed, there will be the inevitable lawsuits challenging the constitutionality, but per prior posts, I’m not a fan of vaccine related lawsuits. See my post about the smartest thing the VC have done for details.

  8. Great Job Rick,
    Hope to see you at the IAACN Vaccine conference in Dallas. I gave them a list of experts to have speak and they got NONE of them, very sad!
    Hope we can reverse the existing law and not pass an even worse one. I have a great interview with the VAXXED producers on my web site if you searched VAXXED on my site you’ll find it, done by Daniel Brigman of the Power Hour Nation

  9. Is anyone scheduled to speak at the Senate health hearing on (likely April 10th) covering these legalities??

    1. The Nuremberg code has zero force and effect under US except insofar as a judge decides to cite it as some kind of moral point, but it could never be used as a basis of a decision of US law, which is governed by statutes and the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court

Leave a Reply