Home>Articles>Bill ToAllow Preteens to Vaccinate Against COVID-19 Without Parental Consent Passes Senate Comm.
Scott Wiener
Scott Wiener. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

Bill ToAllow Preteens to Vaccinate Against COVID-19 Without Parental Consent Passes Senate Comm.

SB 866 moves up despite most bills like it failing in recent months

By Evan Symon, May 6, 2022 12:15 pm

A bill to allow children 12 years and older to vaccinate against COVID without receiving consent from their parents was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 7-0 with 4 abstentions 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.

SB 866 was one of several bills designed to expand vaccine availability and usage by Californians aged 18 or younger. However, as the number of COVID-19 cases in California drastically plummeted throughout the first several months of 2022, vaccine legislation efforts quickly lost steam. Support started drying up and the bills became more scrutinized for what the proposed bills and mandates would actually do.

Some of the more controversial bills, such as SB 871, which would have mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for all K-12 students, quickly fizzled out. Efforts by others to introduce similar mandates, including one by Governor Gavin Newsom, were also similarly delayed. By May, SB 866 was one of the few vaccine bills left, managing to stay in in part due to the bill simply adding on to existing laws that allow Californians at that age to get reproductive healthcare, mental healthcare, and a select number of vaccines, such as those for HPV and Hepatitis B.

During the Committee hearing on Thursday, Senators heard impassioned arguments from both sides of the issue. For those against the bill, a March decision by a federal judge in the District of Columbia that stopped a law allowing minors to be vaccinated without parental knowledge was pointed to as the new standard. Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute specifically addressed this, as well as the issue of informed consent.

“Providing students with true choice would be giving them a choice to attend school with or without a vaccine,” said McReynolds on Thursday. “That’s informed consent and that’s true choice.”

Nicole Pearson, a lawyer who also spoke during the committee meeting, added to the informed consent argument, saying, “Youthful advocates don’t know those times that we stayed up with you, wondering if you were going to live because of some adverse reaction you had to a vaccine. There are many solutions to this problem, and it is not removing the only people who have this knowledge to help their children to make informed consent.”

However, those in favor of the bill argued that those 12 and up should decide on their own health and that parental decisions against vaccinations could lead to adverse effects for them.

“We know vaccines save lives,” said Teens for Vaccines advocate Ani Chaglasian. “Because I did not have the authority to vaccinate myself, I lost my job, summer internship, and was unable to see my grandma when she was intubated.”

SB 866 passes Senate Judiciary Committee

After being passed on Thursday. Senator Wiener reiterated his point, Tweeting out “Teens should be able to protect their own health with vaccines – whether against COVID, flu, measles or polio – even if their parents refuse or can’t take them to get the shot.”

Despite passing the Committee on Thursday, many observers noted that SB 866 is far from a done deal.

“There are still several Senate and Assembly votes ahead,” explained Michelle Wycliffe, a lawyer who has been tracking state-level COVID-19 vaccine measures, to the Globe on Friday. “Not only is it an election year, but it is a year where COVID-19 is becoming less and less of a concern. Even with recent bumps, the number of cases is still very low. That fear factor is no longer there, nor are laws that required vaccines to get into public places. Masking laws have also virtually disappeared.”

“A lot of other bills concerning vaccines in other states are dying out because the pandemic just is not an issue now. For this bill in California, it’s one of the few remaining, and even though it passed by a wide margin yesterday, public opinion may sway it later this year.”

SB 866 is expected to be heard in additional committees.

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


12 thoughts on “Bill ToAllow Preteens to Vaccinate Against COVID-19 Without Parental Consent Passes Senate Comm.

  1. They are attempting to set a precedent for children to be administered hormones and puberty blockers without parental consent

    1. This has already happened, using vulnerable foster children as the lab rats. Horrific exploitation of foster youth framed as “rights” and called “privacy.” Apparently SB 866 is piggy-backing on this already-existing legislation.

      Beginning in 2018 there were (at least) two bills (now law) that set the precedent for what you describe. AB 175 in 2019 allowed minor foster children to make medical decisions without permission of a guardian. AB 2119 in 2018 essentially funneled “gender-confused” youth to hormonal and surgical “solutions” even though the data shows that most grow out of their “confusion,” which by the way we now know was often the result of weird social media bullying and peer-pressure to begin with. Both pieces of legislation have Sen Scott Weiner’s fingerprints on them. One-time Asm Todd Gloria, now San Diego Mayor, was the author of AB 2119, with Weiner as co-author —- a truly horrendous piece of legislation that was passed and signed under the radar. Take a look at AB 175 for yourself. Info about the even more hair-raising AB 2119 is at the link below:

  2. Democrats sure push this around “without receiving consent from their parents”
    Their goals is to remove parents from any decisions on their children.

    Agenda2030 – Community children is what they are after where Gov’t dictates…pay attention to when they say “community” that is what they mean.

  3. We Will Own Your Children and You Will Own Nothing, and WE(F) Will Be Happy.
    I thought parents are legally responsible for their children until they are 18-
    well, unless it is about one of the BIG 5 virtue signaling ‘hot topics’.
    Why are 80% of the bills that Wiener are related to children.
    Is he a parent, or a teacher or what?

    1. Mary, imo, Wiener is a sick, degenerated, poor excuse for a human being; as others of his Democrat colleagues are.

  4. Are we sure that shouldn’t be numbered SB666???

    Weiner strikes me as one of Satan’s minions….and the others that have commented on the diminishment of parental control are spot-on…. California is led by a bunch of mentally-deranged sickos….

  5. Your misguided frame of mind will be your undoing Mr. Scott Wiener, along with the gang of thugs that co-sponsored this ludicrous bill. Your twisted mind is a reminder for the rest of the state to see just how out of touch the San Francisco elected officials really are!!!! All you did was sign the Death Warrant for many children who would otherwise have a long life ahead of them and causing much possible pain and suffering for both the children and their parents (who will by the way have to take care of the. Dangerous possible physical damage after they take the shot). And you will not bear any responsibility for your misguided decision. This falls under the phrase “Taxation without representation”
    Where have we heard that from??

  6. Did Scott Weiner have his childhood ripped from him at a young age? Or does he desire children and is hoping to make them legal adults at the age of 12? All his bills seem to target young children in an attempt to cause separation between the family. If I lived in his neighborhood, I would not let my kids go near his house!

    1. Stacy, I suspect that he was either abused or groomed as a child and wants to normalise his responses to what happened. A lot of abused children feel shame over physical reactions to sexual stimulation, especially if they felt loyal toward the perpetrator. They find ways to make sense of it and there are plenty of explanations to choose from in our sexualised culture. He thinks all children need to be free to experience sexual pleasure, so he’s very focused on diminishing legal protections for minors. “Unenlightened” parents are the enemy. Just my thoughts when I read about his latest attempt to equate child minds with adult minds. (Do these people even care about the decades of research demonstrating how children develop and grow, especially their brains?!)

  7. Eventually the children/teens will belong to the State. Every child will be formed into a Communist robot who no longer answers to the parent(s)

  8. It will be quite easy to inflict all these twisted disgusting laws upon the children of the illegals pouring across the border. As we grandparents and parents leave California to protect our innocents, the evil ones such as Weiner will have plenty of illiterate, pliable and naive masses to practice their disgusting fantasies on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.