UPDATED: Senator Pan’s New Amendment to Change SB 276 (after it passes)

UPDATED: Senator Pan’s New Amendment to Change SB 276 (after it passes)

I am not a California legislative expert and I am not sure what is going on, but today, I received an automated notice as a SB 276 bill watcher of an amendment. Originally I thought that Senator Pan blinked and made the changes requested by the Governor. But then I am not sure what changes the Governor wanted. So I am doubly unsure.

The amended bill has a different bill number, SB 714, and it says it will only go into effect if SB 276 is enacted. So I am guessing this it is stand alone change to SB 276, and is probably intended to allay the concerns of those folks Senator Pan has to listen to, without changing SB 276 which is on the Governor’s desk and probably can’t practically be amended at this point.

However, what I am clear about is that whatever this SB 714 amendment is, it does not resolve the vaccine concerned’s issues, and does not help the families of vaccine injured children who do not want to risk further damage to their vaccine injured child or risk the health and well-being of their other children.

Here is a link to this, whatever it is (and it is now clear that it is a companion bill representing the agreement between the the Governor and Senator Pan).

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB714

Here are the big changes that I see in my first pass at this thing.

1. All Current Vaccine medical exemptions will accepted up until they are not, meaning until the exemption is revoked, and almost all will be.

Here is the amended language:

“(2) Commencing January 1, 2020, a child who has a medical exemption issued before January 1, 2020, shall be allowed continued enrollment to any public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or developmental center within the state until the child enrolls in the next grade span.”

“grade span is defined below:

2. All medical exemptions are only good for a “grade span” which “means each of the following:
(A) Birth to preschool, inclusive.
(B) Kindergarten and grades 1 to 6, inclusive, including transitional kindergarten.
(C) Grades 7 to 12, inclusive..”

There is no such thing as a permanent medical exemption

Here is the language:

“All medical exemptions shall not extend beyond the grade span, as defined in Section 120370.”

3. The penalty of perjury part of the physician’s certification has been removed.
Here is the language:

“A certification by the issuing physician and surgeon, under penalty of perjury, surgeon that the statements and information contained in the form are true, accurate, and complete.”

Here is the big one:

“(4) Medical exemptions issued prior to January 1, 2020, shall not be revoked unless the exemption was issued by a physician or surgeon that has been subject to disciplinary action by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California.”

“has been subject to disciplinary action” probably means that the physician has been sanctioned or disciplined by the Board, as opposed to just being the Respondent (defendant) in a Board disciplinary action/proceeding. If so, the exemptions of Bob Sears can be revoked since he has been sanctioned by the Board, but the exemptions of Ken Stoller cannot (yet) because while he is the subject of a current disciplinary proceeding, no disciplinary action has been taken against him. But honestly, I am not sure about that.

Are the medical exemptions written by the disciplined/sanctioned doctors automatically revoked? NO

“(C) A medical exemption that the reviewing immunization department staff member determines to be inappropriate or otherwise invalid under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall also be reviewed by the State Public Health Officer or a physician and surgeon from the department’s immunization program designated by the State Public Health Officer. Pursuant to this review, the State Public Health Officer or physician and surgeon designee may revoke the medical exemption.”

So an exemption written by a disciplined doctor still has to go through the SB 276 review process before it is revoked. My view is that almost every single medical exemption written by a disciplined physician using broader than CDC contraindications will be revoked.

That means if you have a medical exemption and the writer has been disciplined (or possibly the subject of a disciplinary action), it will most likely be revoked, but it is unclear when. My guess is that there will be some very quick process, because the appeal is just a procedural fig leap to create the illusion of due process.

4. Here is part two of the Bob Sears payback rule:

“(C) If a physician and surgeon licensed with the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California is on probation for action relating to immunization standards of care, the department and governing authority shall not accept a medical exemption form from the physician and surgeon unless and until the probation has been terminated.”

So Bob Sears and any other physician who gets probation as a board sanction is out of the medical exemption writing business. I am assuming this provision only applies to post January 2020 exemptions and not exemptions written prior thereto, which under (2) above appear to be valid for the first half of calendar year 2020. But then, you never know with these jokers.

So what’s the bottom line?

Currently, medically vaccine exempt will technically continue to be vaccine exempt until the (i) the physician who wrote the exemption is under a board disciplinary order and whoever reviews exemptions decides that it is not consistent with applicable standards (CDC, APA, AAFP, ACIP) and if appealed, the appeal affirms the revocation (and pretty much all revocation appeals will be affirmed).

When will that happen? Who knows, but that is what is coming so plan accordingly.

This is a typical Pan move. Make it look like he’s giving something up to placate the powers he needs to placate, but in reality, he’s turning the thumb screws another full turn on the vaccine concerned/vaccine injured families.

Governor Newsom: If you’re listening, don’t be fooled by this bill/amendment. It does nothing to protect the vaccine injured families. Please reconsider your support for this bill.

And by the way, the community thinks that home schoolers are Senator Pan’s next target.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.
rickjaffeesquire@gmail.com

2 thoughts on “UPDATED: Senator Pan’s New Amendment to Change SB 276 (after it passes)

  1. Thank you for following SB 276 and trailer amendment SB 714. It’s truly astonishing the language in this trailer bill.

    Of those exemptions on file with California schools presently, it certainly is not clear how they get transferred to the review board and what will happen, not to mention the same limitations of exemptions a doctor can write.

    The effort, time and cost surrounding these bills is a waste and ruse to go after doctors, and ultimately adults, not to mention the other bills flying under the radar giving county Health Officers full reign to do anything in the event of a ‘break out’.

    Kudos to Senator Groves for citing the whooping cough out break at a California school with 95% + vaccination rates, and where every student with whooping cough had the vaccine. The non vaccinated in the school did not get whooping cough. Her courage and bravery to speak the truth on the Senate floor and question Pan pointedly are appreciated beyond what can be expressed in words. Her examples clearly show there are no need for this bill or the following trailer amendment.

    I truly don’t think the majority of California’s citizens understand the depth and impact of these bills. It is with great hope Governor Newsom can clearly see Senator Pan is not addressing his concerns and has a long term strategy above and beyond this bill and trailer amendment.

    Thank you again for bringing visibility to these bills and having courage to be a voice!

  2. Thank you for your comments, there’s so much to try to understand about these bills and your interpretation and commentary is helpful. On what grounds can Pan go after homeschoolers!? Please help me to understand.

Leave a Reply to Lauren K Cancel reply

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