Some perspective on the CDPH’s Upcoming Revocation of Medical Exemptions written by Disciplined Physicians (and some other stuff at the end)

Some perspective on the CDPH’s Upcoming Revocation of Medical Exemptions written by Disciplined Physicians (and some other stuff at the end)

My post yesterday which shared the CDPH communication to the California schools revoking all medical exemptions written by physicians who have been disciplined by the medical board has sparked outrage, confusion, and questions. I think it might be helpful (though regrettably not satisfying) to give you some perspective as someone who has been litigating these issues for the last few years. I think some of the facts you might not know or might have forgotten.

1. You have been living on borrowed time and that time may be up for most MEs by the beginning of the next school year.

Some perspective: Under the original and final version of SB 276, grandfathered ME’s were required to be filed with the CDPH by July 1, 2020, and they all were subject to review and revocation if they didn’t meet conventional standards, which none of them did/do (in my view anyway). Here is my post from 2019 describing SB 276. https://rickjaffeesq.com/2019/03/30/memo-to-cali-parents-of-currently-vaccine-medically-exempt-children-what-happens-if-sb-276-becomes-law/ . Here is the quote from SB 276 which says it all:

“2) If a medical exemption has been authorized pursuant to Section 120370 prior to the adoption of the statewide standardized form, the parent or guardian shall submit, by July 1, 2020, a copy of that medical exemption to the department for inclusion in the database in order for the medical exemption to remain valid.
(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, the State Public Health Officer or local public health officer may revoke the medical exemption.”

As I said in my post, under SB 276 prior MEs written beyond ACIP guidelines (and that means essentially every single one of them for the children of those reading this post) were or would have been over/done/toast under SB 276. It was just a matter of time of how long it would take for some authority to revoke them, (under SB 276).

However, because of the public outcry you folks managed to direct towards Governor Newsom, right before the end of the legislative session, he blinked and forced Senator Pan and his allies to soften the blow. One of the most important concessions he extracted was removing the requirement that grandfathered ME’s had to be filed with the CDPH. That was a big thing and a big win because – though you might forget it now – many of you had privacy concerns about filing your child’s ME, and you vowed that you would not do it, even if it meant that your child’s ME would not be effective.

The other bigger thing was removing the CDPH’s power to review and revoke these non ACIP compliant ME’s. That was huge, and in effect created a grandfathered status to these MEs. That was a bitter pill to swallow by SB 276’s proponents and bought some extra time for some of these MEs.

The tradeoff was a new provision (in the companion bill, SB 714, companion bill because it was too late to amend SB 276). The new provision provided that grandfathered MEs written by physicians who had been disciplined FOR ANY REASON would be revoked.

But there was a technical/practical problem with that compromise solution arising from the fact that the CDPH didn’t have access to these MEs the way it did under SB 276. The solution CDPH came up with was issuing its recent letter to the schools revoking all the MEs written by disciplined docs and attaching a list of every doctor who had ever been disciplined by the medical or osteopathic board for any reason since who knows when and including dead doctors and doctors who do not even practice in California but maintain California licensure (and the latter being more of an assumption on my part).

My point is that under SB 276 I think all of your non-ACIP MEs would have been revoked by the beginning of the 2020-21 school year. Under SB 714, and perhaps to lessen the impact of its decision, the CDPH is revoking MEs as of the 2021-2022 school year, but it is only revoking those MEs written by disciplined doctors. And that leads to my second point of perspective and it’s a mixed bag.

2. The 92-page list of disciplined doctors is meaningless and not worthy of your outrage

FYI: I represent quite a few doctors under investigation or who have been charged by the board for misconduct for writing non ACIP ME’s. I am also familiar with some of the other investigations and charged cases. I also work with people who have very close contact with California physicians who are vaccine concerned and have written MEs. Without going into details, I think the overwhelming majority of MEs were written by a very, very small number of California physicians, especially the MEs written based solely on family history (and not ongoing medical or developmental problems). I would further say that most of these MEs were written by someone other than the child’s PCP (or sole PCP).

What I am getting at is the fact that there are 92 pages of doctor names or 8500 names on the list is unimportant because there are only a handful or two of physicians who have written all or almost all of these non-ACIP MEs. Beyond that, I will obliquely say that if your child’s ME was not written by his/her PCP and you found your ME writing physician through some parental online social media platform, chances are the doctor who wrote that ME is under an investigation even if you do not know it, because investigations are confidential until either an accusation is filed by the board, or the board has to go to court to obtain medical records. The point being, you are likely not to know if your ME writing physician is under investigation absent these two legal and public events.

And now a piece of perspective that some of you will like

Every one of my cases and investigations involve an MD. I do not have a single ME case involving a DO (which is not to say there are no other lawyers handling investigations for DO’s because I know there are). I am not aware of any DO’s who have been disciplined by the DO board for writing MEs. I am aware of at least one investigation by the DO board and it closed the case based on facts that would have caused the Medical Board to have filed charges. I tentatively and cautiously conclude that the DO board is more open-minded than the Medical Board on this issue. If so, then it looks to me that if your child’s ME was written by a DO, you have a much better chance of it staying in effect throughout the grade span.

And let’s clear up some confusion about why all disciplined docs are having their MEs revoked.

Commenters to the prior post wondered why the MEs of physicians who had been disciplined for reasons other than vaccine exemption writing are being revoked because they think the statute requires that the discipline be related to vaccines. Unfortunately, that is not the case, but it could appear confusing because of the not ideal structure and order of the law.

The simple of it is that all grandfathered MEs written by a physician who has been disciplined for any reason can be and now will be revoked as of the 2021-2022 school year. Here is the applicable language from Health & Safety Code Section 120272:

“(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.”

For new medical exemptions (ie those submitted through online forms) it’s a little different. Here are the operative provisions:

“(B) If there is a pending accusation against a physician and surgeon with the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California relating to immunization standards of care, the department shall not accept a medical exemption form from the physician and surgeon unless and until the accusation is resolved in favor of the physician and surgeon.

(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.”

I think these statutory provisions are relatively clear.

So is there really nothing that can be done to protect these MEs or at least delay the revocation or enforcement, Really?

(hint: this is the part which you should pay close attention to.)

Such was a question posed in a comment to my post yesterday, and it caused me to go over the situation again and again in my mind. The good of it is that the SB 276/714 was a rush job and rush jobs sometimes create headaches for the sponsors down the road, witness the above with the revocation of MEs from disciplined docs.

Let me just obliquely say that I think the statute has some structural problems and that in some cases, what is said is not what might not have been meant, and what is said may lead to unintended or unthought-of opportunities.

I have every reason to believe that these issues will surface prior to the effective date of the CDPH’s revocation letter. I believe that these issues, concerns, and opportunities will surface in a multifaceted approach involving administrative and civil procedure vehicles and with public social media and direct-to-school participatory efforts.

That would be the hope and the plan anyway. There would or could be a lot of moving pieces to set up, but my sense is that the community is up for the task. We still need to see a couple more pieces put on the board by the other side, but they are coming, (and if they don’t then that’s even better).

The point is that I think me and some of my friends and colleagues (i.e., the usual suspects) may have another move for the families who have MEs from disciplined doctors, and it should come around the time of the attempted enforcement of the revocation order, and it might possibly slow things down and maybe even lead to good things.

Stay tuned!

Rick Jaffe, Esq.

48 thoughts on “Some perspective on the CDPH’s Upcoming Revocation of Medical Exemptions written by Disciplined Physicians (and some other stuff at the end)

  1. Mr. Jaffe, thanks for the further clarification. As I wrote in my previous response to your prior email, it was “jammed last minute” (changes were made one or two days before voting). The republicans asked that it be postponed 2 weeks for this very reason, but were ignored by a democratic majority (I’m a democrat, but not on this issue).

    The thing we’ve learned on the Covid pandemic is that “here immunity” will be reached when 75 or 80% are vaccinated or previously infected. IN the prior language to the implementation there was reference to applying to only schools with less than 95% vaccinated children (our school is at 98% so our son is not likely to infect anyone with measels, etc..) This is a classic OVERKILL.

    I’d like to say with the pressure of Newsome’s impeachment he would take steps to fix, but traditionally anti-vaxxers haven’t been very friendly to him, when in fact he took steps to soften Pan’s recommendations and nearly vetoed the bill.

    But the saddest thing of this situation is that our child JUST got off of “homeschooling’ through Covid, studies have shown that kids homeschooled this Covid year fell behind and suffered psychological issues, and depression. Now when everyone is so optimistic, and this poor children are thrown back in to that hellhole!

    Let’s pray the governor will take pity on us!

    1. I don’t know what the Governor could do to take pity on you. Order the CDPH not to enforce the law? allow ME’s which the law says are invalid because the issuing doctor has been board sanctioned? That seems unrealistic, but for sure anyone who knows him should try to have him do something.

      1. also, my sense is that people whose children have ME’s are more likely to be against all the things Newsom has done to keep everything closed and those are the folks pushing the recall. So, I’m not seeing that Newsom is going to do anything for these people who are trying to remove him from office, or one identifiable sub group

    2. I will NEVER PRAY FOR THIS GOV, Gary!!! I can only pray for his soonest recall!! Your position deeply saddens me, Gary, we lost any and all medical freedoms and you are asking for PITY? Not me, too low to fall. I am shocked to know that anybody still cherishes that Gruesome “NEARLY” vetoed the bill. As a result, we are NEARLY free, but oops …
      we are not. Also since YOU OFFERED your political affiliation, I would like to comment:
      DEEP SHAME ON YOU TO BE A DEM AFTER WHAT DEMS DID TO US, OUR KIDS AND MANY MORE ACROSS THE STATES. Med freedom is not an “isolated” issue on liberal agenda. WAKE UP and smell the roses! Stop
      Moping around. TUNE in to people leading the battle, Del, RFK, others you need a rude awakening!

  2. Agree with Gary!! There should be more noise made nationwide on this.

    We’re all, ALL locked down for about a year kids stuck on Zoom now open, and we’re being forced/west sill no parental choice, to put our kids back on zoom permanently now!
    Law and this topic should come into play for evidence what our kid’s have been through and now being thrown back in to zoom at home or move out of state. No choice!
    Btw
    What is the “rough”
    time of the attempted enforcement of the revocation order??
    Thx

  3. Mr Jaffe,
    Has Dr. Stoller had any disciplinary action taken yet? I thought he still had a hearing and possibly an appeal? Wouldn’t that mean that prior ME’s written by him would still be valid? (For now) The way I’m understanding it is “pending accusations” is referring to any NEW ME’s being submitted starting Jan 2021 wouldn’t be valid. Can you please clarify? Thank-you!

  4. Dear Mr. Jaffe, If a child is past the final check point, is it correct to assume that this will not impact them? Also, to have different standards regarding the scrutiny of physicians regarding grandfathered and new MEs is discriminatory. Please let us know what we can do to help. Thank you for all you do.

    1. I am not sure what you mean by past the final checkpoint or if I do I don’t think that’s relevant to the issues I am discussing. Right now, based on the CDPH’s recent statement telling schools that all MEs from physician’s who have been disciplined are revoked as of the start of the 2021-2022 means just that. It doesn’t matter whether the student has passed the final checkpoint meaning what some grade like 8th or 9th. If you child is going into any grade at any stage at or in between a check point, the ME is revoked if it was written by a board disciplined doctor. I think the law is pretty clear about that.

      1. I believe their question is that, if a student already in 7th grade, and going to 8th grade in 2021, should their ME on file still being reviewed yearly past 7th grade check point? Even if it was written by a “board disciplined doctor”?

        Thank you for everything you do, Richard!

        1. I guess I still don’t understand. If the CDPH takes the position that all exemptions of disciplined physicians what is there to annual review? seems to me that answer is the same. ME’s are only valid within a grade span anyway. If someone is entering a new grade span in 2021-2022 year, a new ME is needed. If the student is just moving up in the same grade span, the ME is grandfathered unless the doc has been disciplined and all the disciplined docs are on that 92-page list, and it seems to me that the CDPH’s position is they are revoked and revoked means they are not valid and the kids have to comply with the vaccine schedule to go to school. I think that is what the communications says.

          1. Let me ask a different question. After 277 was passed and after the law went into effect in July 2016 what happened to high schoolers in 10th thru 12th grade who did not have a medical exemption? Were they grandfathered in and permitted to remain in school, because they were past their final checkpoint? If so, would this CDPH order have any impact on those students now? Or, would a medical exemption even be necessary to these students at this point?

        2. Yes, that is what I meant. If the student is already past the final check point and is entering 10 thru 12 grade, what is the likelihood that this would impact them?

          1. I don’t think the CDPH letter or I can be any clearer. Medical exemptions written under the old law by physicians who have been disciplined by the medical or osteopathic board for any reason are revoked effective the beginning of the 2021-2022 term or Septemeber 1, 2021. That’s not really hard to understand, but I gather it is hard to accept. It doesn’t matter what grade the student is in now or will be next year; it doesn’t matter what check point was passed or will or won’t be passed. The statute says ME’s written by disciplined doctors are revoked and the CDPH just announced its implementation for the coming year. Subject to something changing, you all should assume that if the physician who wrote your child’s ME is on the list or is disciplined before the beginning of the next school year, the school will not allow your child to attend school absent proof of compliance with the vaccine schedule, with whatever statutory exceptions as to time to complete there are (and I am not sure there are any in California). I think it is that simple, unless something changes. And something might, but we’ll have to see what happens.

  5. Mr. Jaffee, in response to your question “what can the governor do”, my point is that he was unaware of the change saying any doctor with “any ” disiplinary action would have the exemption revoked. In fact, Newsome threatened to veto a prior bill which specified “disciplinary action for vaccine waivers” and in fact as a compromise those with exemptions were given additional time (i.e. a second grader would be allowed to finish elementary school.

    In fact when the bill was passed most people assumed it only affected doctors with disciplinary action. I went on line and got every written article I could find, and one said that the only waivers that wouldn’t be allowed were from Dr. Sears (who was the only one at the time that had a disciplinary action pertaining to vaccinations) and the article said it was aimed at Sears.

    However I do agree with Mr. Jaffee, it has highly unlikely that this will change. The best way this could be addressed is for someone to represent “ALL” the children subject to this specific item, but I don’t see that happening. I follow anything I can get my hand on, have worked with two doctors who have issued ME’s in San Diego, and contacted every source and Mr. Jaffee has the most coordinated effort. However I don’t see how anyone can get their hands on a list of these affected kids and when their parents get their notice, they will be going 10 different directions, apealing their school (they have no authority), writing to their congressmen (who has no authority), letters to the editor, arguing their “rights”, arguing hardship. As Jaffee says, even though most people didn’t understand this in the final draft document, it is the law and can’t be clearer. The law can’t be appealed, the only resolution is from the Governor changing the language in the text as he did before.

    This is going to affect a tremendous amount of children, and he’s facing a recall., He has the absolute right to “postpone”, and in fact the original bill said that children who lost exemption would be notified to leave school in February, 2021, and now its extended to September, so that could be postponed and the bill corrected.

    People on this page are talking about “national opposition” and you need to focus only on this state and this governor.

  6. Mr. Jaffe, thank you for what you do! As I said, I’m a policy wonk and worked for 40 years in land development reading in great details a multitude of ordinances. Thank you for this update because you are 100% right, there is is in black and white, SB 276 says for exemption to be valid, it has to be submitted by January 1, 2020, and would be evaluated to meet standards which (I agree) none of the current exemptions could meet!

    At the time all of the public outcry was about
    SB 277 and I read every single iteration change, detail, etc. but I was completely unaware
    of SB 276, or at lease didn’t understand the impact!

    As I said, I actually was in contact with three ME issuing physicians in san diego. One told me that it didn’t make any difference that the language regarding “any” disciplinary action because this physical felt that the state was starting action against “all” physicians that had issued ME’s. Sure enough , I saw this doctor on TV 3 months later as being disciplined!!

    I value your newsletter and anyone who reads this should pay heed to what you say!

  7. Mr. Jaffee, in reading more of your past notices, I realize I DID read SB 276, but the last time I did was in 2019 and it CHANGED last July!!! Geez.
    Had I read your May, 2020 notice closer, I would have been looking for the changes to the document which are so devastating to us!

    This is how bad laws get passed in the ‘dead of night!”.

  8. If they revoke the ME will they offer at timeframe where children can start the vaccination process and not be removed from school? Parents can’t play catch up in a month. How unsafe. I’m just heartbroken. My kids both have a ME and their doctor is on the list. I can’t homeschool so I’m at a loss…

      1. Thank you. Another question. I believe in SB277 and or 276, Students with IEPs could not be barred from attending school due to vaccine status because of FAPE. Does that still stand?

        1. Good question Lisa. I am not 100% sure. That was my understanding as well (though I don’t what FAPE stands for). I think some had both IEP which I thought gave them some kind of exemption status and a ME. The ME is gone (if the doc was disciplined) and they will have to whatever protection they had under some kind of school disability exemption or accommodation. But it’s not something that I have spent any time working on, so I am not a definitive source about it. I’ll check.

          1. Mr. Jaffee, I seem to remember that in a May, 2020 newsletter you sent out you warned of the change to SB 276 which required certification of prior ME’s. I believe that was added in July 2020.

            My question is this, I think you said in a post earlier this week that when Newsome had Pan changed the law late 2019, he removed the cerfification. So did the July 2020 change put that same certification back in?

          2. I think what I said was that I thought they would try to amend 276/714 to add back the submission requirement for grandfathered ME’s. Whatever that did not happen as best as I understand it, probably because most schools did not open for in person learning.
            Instead, now that schools are reopening, I guess the department of public health is doing Plan B, which is revoking the MEs of the discipline doctors and that should knock out many thousands on them.
            Bottom line, I am not aware of a requirement to file grandfathered medical exemptions. It was just a speculation on my part, which didn’t happen because of circumstance.

          3. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-21/sb276-california-vaccine-law-fight-gavin-newsom-legislature-how-it-happened

            This draconian action by the State revoking so many ME’s is a shock to most of us who reviewed all the documentation at the time, and I believe it is NOT what the Governor intended. To remind myself, review the article above in the LA times a week after the “compromise” bill was signed by the Governor.

            In that, he said is initial opposition was because ME’s should be determined by your doctor, NOT some Board. He further goes on to state that the focus of the bill was to review ME’s in schools which have LESS THAN 95% vaccination rate AND ME’s by doctors who have issued more than 5 in a year!

            This is CLEARLY not what the language of the bill stated and what they are doing now, so when thousands of letters go to children having their exemptions revoked, Newsome may give some help.

            Our only hope!

        2. This is a very important question. I believe that unvaccinated children cannot be barred from campus if they have an IEP. I have another important question: Do 504 plans fall under the umbrella of FAPE as well? The reason I ask is because failing grades and/or learning and physical disabilities are not requirements to receive a 504 plan. 504 plans are not as restrictive as IEPs and allows for other types of emotional/psychiatric conditions from my understanding. So, it is very important to know iff the disability laws protect students on 504 plans as well.

          1. the 504 issue is above my head so I asked my go-to all knowing vaccination guru Greg Glaser, Esq. and he pointed out that the knowledgable gals at educate advocate (and something else) have answered that question in a FAQ. Here is what I got from greg quote the Educate… cite:

            My child has a 504, are they excluded from SB277 immunization requirements?

            Unfortunately, no. 504 plans are not covered by IDEA and are therefore not exempt.

            If you feel your child’s needs are not met with their 504 plan, I recommend requesting that the school assess your child in all suspected areas of disability to determine special education eligibility.

            More on Initial Assessments: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/ 504001Ch02.pdf

            More on 504 vs. IEP’s: https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/special-services/504-plan/the- difference-between-ieps-and-504-plans

            these people know their stuff, so if you have other questions, you should go to them, and I’ve exhausted my very limited info about all the vaccination details.

          2. Thank you fir checking into that for me Richard. It is unfortunate that the law does not include 504s, because many times students need immediate access to nurses and counselors, etc. under this plan. To deny these services will put some students at risk. Hopefully, somebody challenges the sn276/sb277 laws regarding 504 plans in court at some point.

          3. Regrettably, for families in that position, I wouldn’t count on a successful challenge to that. These are very technical issues, which I think the courts will defer to the public health experts on general questions like this, especially in the today’s context of the societal (or establishment’s) battle against so called vaccine hesitancy, and this will be viewed as just a manifestation of that battle, I think. Maybe individual cases can be fought or challenged through the schools, but I’m just not seeing a judge overturning the statutory framework concerning these programs.

  9. Thanks Sarah, I have the same question.
    I’m also curious to know if a child is entering the 8th grade, will they only need the 7th grade shots, rather that taking all the shots from kindergarten and beyond?
    Example: A child had a personal belief exemption on file up until 6th grade. Then 276/277 happened. Then for entry to 7th grade provided the ME from a Dr on this list. Which is now revoked. The child wouldn’t need to catch up back to Kindergarten – would they??

    Thank you for any insights to this question, and for all of your work and keeping us informed!

    1. I agree, it’s doubtful ANY ME’s will survive all the requirements. However I’ve scrolled through the last 4 newsletters and the comments and I can’t find the tables for “catching up” on vaccinations for our students.

      1. see my latest post on the California catch-up schedule. Basically, every dose of every vaccine is required and the schedule sets out the minimum and the maximum time between the successive shots of the same vaccine. The doc decides on which vaccines to administer when per the CDC ACIP guidelines on catch up.

  10. Thanks Sarah, I have the same question.
    I’m also curious to know if a child is entering the 8th grade, will they only need the 7th grade shots, rather that taking all the shots from kindergarten and beyond?
    Example: A child had a personal belief exemption on file up until 6th grade. Then 276/277 happened. Then for entry to 7th grade provided the ME from a Dr on this list. Which is now revoked. The child wouldn’t need to catch up back to Kindergarten – would they??

    Thank you for any insights to this question, and for all of your work and keeping us informed!

    1. I think you all are having a hard time accepting the reality of it. The tables I referred to establish a catch-up schedule for every single required vaccine from birth through the child’s age and set out when the second, third, fourth, and fifth shot of that vaccine has to be taken in order for the child to stay in school. (I think there was a grace period back in 2016 for pre existing PBE, but I think that is long over now that we are 5 years out).
      At the end of the process, however long it will take, the child, and all children will be 100% caught up with every single shot required by that age. That’s the whole point of the tables I talked about. There is only compliance with the entire vaccine schedule per the tables which set out how long it will take. Some of the shots allow up to 12 months between doses so it could take several years for complete catch-up, (DPTA as I recall) but if your child is in school and had a PBE or a ME by a disciplined doctor, he/she will eventually be caught up and will stay in school only if he/she gets every shot by the outside compliance date. Not hard to understand, but understandably hard to accept if you’ve had a ME for your kids the past few years.

  11. Mr. Jaffe, you posted that in your prior newsletter you showed the schedule for vaccinations. I reviewed all of them and I’m sorry I can’t find it (three newsleters on April 17).

    Could you please just post the link in response to this question? It is important.

    1. IEP = Individualized Education Plan – it’s for students with disabilities and has both goals and accommodation written into it so that the student can access the curriculum
      FAPE = Free and Appropriate Public Education and falls under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

  12. Rick, Interesting article this morning, referencing “nearly 500 district teachers and classroom aides scheduled to return to in-person instruction won’t because they have a medical exemption”. How could that be possible since doctors are limited in the ME they can write? Are adult MEs considered different than child MES for public school?

    https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/S-F-students-face-Zoom-in-a-room-at-16118345.php?fbclid=IwAR2_mJHfSOWgECTWuKEWjWpYCSzvtWSCm3rQ6eIEmzsdSJOW6wEm22FguC8

    1. I couldn’t read the whole article since I am not a subscriber but I do have a couple thoughts, one is definitive.
      the Health and Safety Code provisions we are talking about 120370 et seq only apply to school children. They do not apply to teachers. So the answer to your question is a hard yes. Teachers have different rules.
      There is no mandatory vaccination for the childhood vaccines for adults as far as I know.
      Under federal employment law there disability and religious accommodations to employer vaccine mandates (like the UC flu mandate last year).
      Because of Covid, I assume some teachers who have medical issues have received an accommodation to continue to teach on line despite school opening up. could be age or some medical condition and inability to get the COVID vaccine because of a medical condition, would be my best guess.

  13. There is “not one California doctor willing to sign an ME” because this is COLLUSION. Doctors can not care or make their own decisions without creating a target on themselves. Collusion is UNACCEPTABLE. The “appeal” is a check box with NO ability for the doctors examining the appeal to hear from the patient.

    1. You are correct. medical exemptions except for government (CDC/ACIP) and practitioner trade group written guidelines (the AAP Redbook) are over in California, as they are in many other states. NJ for example specifically states that a medical exemption can only be based on an ACIP contraindication or precaution and they are vaccine-specific, not these global/all vaccine exemptions created by physicians who have a minority view on the dangers of the vaccine schedule. Ultimately, public health issues like these are decided by the public health officials and the legislatures, witness the removal of the religious exemption in Ct. yesterday. You might not like it, but that’s the way it works. And don’t expect any help from the courts, because they are just as scared of the anti and unvaccinated as the legislators and the public health officials. I think people who feel really, really strongly about this will either home school or move to a place that still has some kind of religious or personal belief option. No on is stopping anyone with strong convictions to move (except if you have a custody order prohibiting relocation of kids without a court order). Sorry but that was the trend before the pandemic and it’s obviously getting worse and your voices are being heard less and less, I am sorry to say.

      1. Due to the covid vaccine adverse reactions, people are becoming more aware of injuries. Many parents will not want their children taking this vaccine. A fear of a covid vax mandate for school may lead to others joining the movement. While they have won some battles, giving up and giving into tyranny is never a good plan. We have definitely hit a roadblock, so perhaps it is time to change direction. The lockdowns have shown that isolation has caused children severe mental health issues. Perhaps, it’s time to lobby to give these children with mental health issues (504 plans) ALL the protections under IEPs in the interest of equity.We need to beat them at their own game.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.