SB 276 new amendment filed. It was a head fake not a curve ball/tactical retreat benefiting Current Exemptees: Sceptics 1, Hypocrite accusers 0, People (like me) who were relieved and grateful 0

SB 276 new amendment filed. It was a head fake not a curve ball/tactical retreat benefiting Current Exemptees: Sceptics 1, Hypocrite accusers 0, People (like me) who were relieved and grateful 0

As most of you already know, Senator Pan’s amendment was filed yesterday afternoon, May 17th. Here it is.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276

Unfortunately, it doesn’t protect the children with current exemptions (or it does, if you’re in the mainstream). Friends and commenters have correctly analyzed the bill. No sense reinventing the wheel on this. Here is some of new bill language, related by one commentator:

There is no “grandfathering” in the amended text:
(d) If the State Public Health Officer or a local public health officer determines that a medical exemption submitted to the department is fraudulent or inconsistent with applicable CDC guidelines, as specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the State Public Health Officer or local public health officer may revoke the medical exemption.

Here is the skinny on the amendment from one popular professional source:

So, obviously the rumors about grandfathering in existing VMEs were FALSE. The amendment language simply states that CDPH isn’t required to review or approve old exemptions, BUT they still CAN if they decide to. Doctors and their patients will still have to re-submit all older exemptions into the NEW SYSTEM, and part of the new system is a CONSENT for the release of medical records to the medical board. This will open up ALL old medical exemptions to medical board investigation. HOWEVER, doctors can only submit an old exemption if there is a contraindication or precaution, which 99.9% of them won’t have, so doctors won’t be able to re-submit these. If a doctor doesn’t re-submit the old exemption, then it becomes invalid Dec 31, 2020. And they can’t re-submit without a contra or precaution. Any that they DO submit will be investigated by the medical board. It’s totally bogus, and actually has made the bill WORSE, not better.

So, where are we?

Back to where the bill was before the May 17th amendment:
Under SB 276, there will not be any medical exemptions beyond CDC contraindication and CDC precautions, and expect that all current exemptions will be voided by the state or local health officials.

I have to give credit to Senator Pan. He is a very skilled politician. He knew what he had to do to get his bill through the appropriations committee, and did it by creating the illusion of a tactical retreat which suggested that there would be less of a financial impact than the critics stated. And he did it without making any tactical retreat whatsoever, and without changing the underlying economic costs of the bill. I’m sure you all hate it, but for better and worse, that’s politics.

Senator Pan is doing his job very effectively. Time for you all to move on to the next phase of the battle and be effective.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

16 thoughts on “SB 276 new amendment filed. It was a head fake not a curve ball/tactical retreat benefiting Current Exemptees: Sceptics 1, Hypocrite accusers 0, People (like me) who were relieved and grateful 0

  1. I appreciate the analysis. I must object at the statement “Pan is doing his job very effectively.” He is playing a strategic game of chess here with some pretty suspect moves, but no matter how sneakily and successfully he makes his moves, unfortunately children are casualties, and tax payer money is wasted that could be put to better more urgent use, so in no way could I ever consider this “effective” when I think of what the role of a public servant should be.

    1. According to a recent poll, 72% of Americans think that children should be vaccinated and I would speculate that most if not all of them would support what Pan is doing and applaud him on his tactics. Depending on which side of the issue you’re on, you either like or don’t like what he’s doing. But regardless of sides, he’s a very effective guy and like I said, most Americans probably agree with him. Maybe time and history will prove Pan and the 72% wrong, but that hope or predication doesn’t change the current reality.

      1. Any state you recommend we move to where it is much harder to pass these laws? I have given up on SB 276 and don’t expect we can stop it.

        1. There is a federal mandatory vaccine bill on the table that will force all states to comply. We all need to fight it, as there will be no place to go. We must all start fighting this, calling, writing representatives in Washington, taking to the streets in protest. But the good news is several states have now defeated their recent mandatory vaccination bills, so they still value independent science, the constitution, medical informed consent, choice, liberty unlike fascist California.

      2. 72% if Americans support it because the media has a firm grip on the narrative. I don’t think most people ever really look much into vaccinations. They just do as they are told or what is recommended and that is that.

  2. For the thousands of parents that currently have medical exemptions LEGALLY under SB277, it seems as though though they could file a class action lawsuit if appeals are denied. I would suspect a retroactive clawback of exemptions, issued fully within the law, could be seen by the courts as an “injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence.”

    As Jacobson v Mass stated: “the police power of a state, whether exercised directly by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.”

  3. Any state you recommend we move to where it is much harder to pass these laws? I have given up on SB 276 and don’t expect we can stop it.

    1. There is a federal mandatory vaccine bill on the table that will force all states to comply. We all need to fight it, as there will be no place to go. We must all start fighting this, calling, writing representatives in Washington, taking to the streets in protest. But the good news is several states have now defeated their recent mandatory vaccination bills, so they still value independent science, the constitution, medical informed consent, choice, liberty unlike fascist California.

  4. the trend seems to clearly against PBE and the so called religious exemption. The problem is that any new outbreak in a place is likely to call for elimination of these personal belief exemptions.

  5. So, since the public health officer wears a badge, his/her analysis will override another doctor’s? What if this public health officer took this poor paying public job because he/she barely made it out of medical school and can’t tell the difference between a flask and a petri dish?

  6. My read on the bill is very different from the professional source quoted:

    Section 120370 is the “grandfathering” clause (except it’s not actually grandfathering). From my read, with old exemptions issued before 1/1/2021, they would need to contain the info listed in 120370(a)(1) (written statement stating nature and duration of condition etc.), be “filed with the governing authority” (Section 120370(a)(1)) and the parent must submit the old exemption by 12/31/2020 to the department of health for inclusion in the database (Section 120370(a)(2) and Section 120372(c)(2)).

    And then under 120372(d) and new section (g), they can review and revoke ANY exemptions (including old ones) whenever they want, basically.

    So I don’t think old exemptions need to contain a parent consent to release of records, etc. and I don’t think they have to be limited to CDC contraindications and precautions. But they can very easily be invalidated.

Leave a Reply to Richard Jaffe Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *