Home>Articles>Bill Introduced to Allow 12 Years And Older To Vaccinate Without Parental Consent

Senator Scott Wiener. (Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

Bill Introduced to Allow 12 Years And Older To Vaccinate Without Parental Consent

SB 866 would cover all federally approved vaccinations that meet CDC immunization recommendations

By Evan Symon, January 21, 2022 4:34 pm

A bill that would allow children 12 years and older to vaccinate without receiving consent from their parents was introduced in the Senate on Thursday.

Senate Bill 866, authored by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), would specifically authorize minors 12 years and older to consent to vaccines that meet specified federal agency criteria. Vaccine providers would be green-lit to administer the vaccines, but SB 866 would not have vaccine providers give any other service outside their scope of practice. The bill would not only allow the COVID-19 vaccine, but any vaccine approved by the federal government that meets CDC immunization recommendations.

In addition to increasing immunized and booster receiving population in California, Wiener wrote the bill to allow students who would be barred from jobs, sports, clubs, and other activities without the vaccine to be able to more easily receive it. In a press release, Wiener also said that many students who want the vaccine can’t get it due to parental beliefs about vaccines, or many parents are working and too busy to physically bring them to places that offer vaccinations and consent.

He also pointed out that those 13 and up already have the right to get reproductive healthcare, mental healthcare, and a select number of vaccines, such as those for HPV and hepatitis B. Supporters said that rather than being an outright new law, SB 866 is simply building on current ones.

“Giving young people the autonomy to receive life-saving vaccines, regardless of their parents’ beliefs or work schedules, is essential for their physical and mental health,” said Senator Wiener on Thursday. “COVID-19 is a deadly virus for the unvaccinated, and it’s unconscionable for teens to be blocked from the vaccine because a parent either refuses or cannot take their child to a vaccination site. So many teens want to be vaccinated so that they can lead a more normal life — participating in sports or band, traveling, going to friends’ homes — but they’re prevented from doing so due to their parents’ political views or inability to find the time. Unvaccinated teens also make schools less safe and threaten our ability to keep schools open. In states like Alabama and South Carolina, teenagers are already allowed to get vaccinated without parental consent. Young Californians should also have the right to keep themselves healthy and safe.”

In a later statement, Wiener added that he expected strong opposition to the bill, noting “We know we have the fringe anti-vaxxers who oppose any bill that expands access to vaccines.”

Support for, opposition against SB 866

Wiener quickly received support on Thursday from many students and medical officials, echoing Wiener’s reasons.

“We know how important vaccines are for protecting the health of teens and their families and communities,” said San Francisco Director of Health Dr. Grant Colfax on Thursday. “Our San Francisco teens have some of the highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in the state and nation with more than 90% fully vaccinated, and they are now getting boosted. This age group has been a critical part of our response to ending the pandemic. This legislation would help increase vaccination rates among young people 12 years and older across California.”

While some anti-vaccine groups did oppose the bill on Thursday, parents groups and some school organizations quickly opposed the legislation, noting that statewide mandates are already in place and that those under 18 are still not legally adults and may not fully understand what a vaccination entails for them.

“These are big life decisions, and many younger people may just decide on impulse to get one rather than look at the pros and cons, what other options are, and other variables with the vaccine,” said Chip Garnett, a parental group leader at a school district in San Diego County, to the Globe on Friday. “Many of us aren’t anti-vaxxers. In fact, me and my family have already vaccinated, with many getting boosters. But we know from talking with our 13 and 14 year-olds that they don’t get too much about the vaccines other than people are getting them and that if you want to go to school in-person you need them.”

“If the bill passes, parents would have to convince their children not to take them. I mean, many are doing so now, but they would have to compete against what they’re hearing from school. It’s removing what should be a parental decision, or at least something that the parent should know about, at the very least for filling in medical history or alerting to allergies or side effects in the family.”

If passed, California would have the second youngest vaccination consent age in the U.S., trailing only the District of Columbia which has age 11 as the minimum. SB 866 is expected to be heard in the Senate soon.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Evan Symon
Spread the news:


16 thoughts on “Bill Introduced to Allow 12 Years And Older To Vaccinate Without Parental Consent

  1. He wants them to have autonomy because he is a sicko. Look at his history of trying to allow audits to molest children as long as there within 5 years of each other’s age. He wants children free from parent protection I think for many reasons!

    1. Christmas, I think one reason is that he wants children to be wards of the state beyond the reach of parents. In addition, perhaps as a result of ideological Marxist-Leninist brainwashing, this person appears to have developed a warped mind and a twisted soul. “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” – Vladimir Lenin

  2. I do not feel a 12 year old has the mental ability or emotional maturity to make a medical, life long decision. Let me guess, the pharmaceutical companies will receive immunity from any future adverse reaction lawsuits for children without parental consent. Who benefits from this bill? Attempt at stripping parents from another role. Children are becoming property of the Federal government.

  3. I’m convinced Weiner did not have love as a child, as is evident by his insane bills. Someone in the legislature who actually HAS children, should stand against the absurdities he proposes.

  4. Figured it would be Wiener.
    They want to give children the right to control their own medical treatment but they want parents to pay for it until their children are 26.

  5. “…Wiener added that he expected strong opposition to the bill, noting “We know we have the fringe anti-vaxxers who oppose any bill that expands access to vaccines.”
    NO! You dolt! We don’t want your ” expanded access” to children. Minors. NOT at legal age of consent. It has nothing to do with “vaccines”. It has everything to do with children being intellectually and emotionally ill-prepared (hell, many adults) to make imprudent decisions.

  6. With pedophiles and mentally ill legislators like this suggesting and writing laws in California, this state is doomed….
    Talk about gaslighting and psyops…this guy is completely deranged….and San Francisco should be ashamed of itself for supporting this sickness…

  7. Pedophile Wiener would like nothing more than to be able to freely take your child and sexually assault them with no consequences as well as use them as a scientific experiment. Basically what has been going on for decades in secret but now wants it to be legal so he and the other creatures don’t have to hide any longer.

  8. There will be a reckoning for Newsom, Scott Weiner, Richard Pan, California Health officials, and anyone else who has promoted the ‘Emergency Use’, non-vaccine fraud. Twitter is full of ‘I regret getting the vaccine’ testimonies. They are well aware of their actions, and know fully well the dire consequences for children.

  9. I have a better solution for Scott Weiner and his concern for OUR children….
    Allow parents to decide what is right for their own children.
    Parents are still legally responsible for their children until the age of 18, I believe.
    Why is it necessary to allow anyone under 18 to make a choice like that for themselves?
    Perhaps we can then lower the age to 5 years old, just like the CDC keeps doing with the
    emergency use authorization.

  10. But when some of these self-consenting children get injured by the vaccine, it won’t be Scott Wiener paying their medical bills and taking care of them. He’s happy to let the parents take responsibility for that!

Leave a Reply

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