Home>Articles>SB 276 Will Violate the Doctor-Patient Relationship by Eliminating Medical Exemptions

SB 276 Will Violate the Doctor-Patient Relationship by Eliminating Medical Exemptions

If the government wants to mandate vaccinations, it must ensure that they are safe for all children

By California Globe, August 26, 2019 2:06 am

Of the fraudulent exemptions cases that the Medical Board of California has investigated to date, there have been no fraudulent medical exemptions found.


Special to California Globe by Mary Holland, Esq.*

California has one of the strictest compulsory vaccination laws for schoolchildren in the nation, but Senate Bill 276 by Senator Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) would eliminate almost all vaccine medical exemptions, allegedly to crack down on fraud. Under this bill, State bureaucrats — not physicians –would be in charge of deciding whether children may receive medical exemptions and thus whether they can attend school.

UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky recently weighed in on this in his OpEd, “Vaccines Protect Us. But does the U.S. Constitution protect anti-vaccine parents?,” published in the SacBee on May 6, 2019. Re-litigating SB 277, Chemerinsky got it wrong. While it is true that under SB 277 there are no lawful rights for parents to refuse vaccination other than medical ones, what Chemerinsky didn’t articulate is that this new bill is about physicians, not parents. After SB 277, it is solely within a physician’s discretion to grant a medical exemption, based on past adverse reactions and family history. SB 276 now seeks to remove a doctors’ ability to grant medical exemptions for the extremely small percentage that need them and, instead, to vest that authority in government bureaucrats.

SB 276 is a clear example of government overreach, resulting in the unnecessary and inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. Since SB 277 eliminated both personal belief and religious exemptions (47 other states allow either or both), vaccination rates increased from 92.9 to 94.8 percent. Currently, less than 1 percent of California kindergartners have a permanent medical exemption. In addition, 96.6 percent of kindergartners have had the MMR to protect against the measles infection.


California parents already lost the ability to refuse vaccination under SB 277


Medical exemptions exist for a very simple reason: to protect those who are particularly vulnerable to vaccine injury. The fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has produced a list of contraindications and precautions is proof that vaccines do indeed carry serious and potentially fatal risks for a subset of people. Aside from the CDC’s list of contraindications, there is a long list of additional side effects that vaccine manufacturers must set forth in vaccine package inserts pursuant to federal regulations. The manufacturers themselves report that children have experienced life-threatening reactions such as cardiac arrest, seizures, paralysis, encephalitis, and death, all of which are listed on the inserts. Under SB 276, a child with a rare immunosuppressive disorder is protected by the CDC, but who is protecting the child who suffers multiple seizures after the MMR or has permanent paralysis after the DTaP? If the government wants to mandate vaccinations, it must ensure that they are safe for all children.

All of this begs the question, who is responsible for adverse reactions if California takes away the vast majority of necessary medical exemptions?

When a physician decides that a child is too medically fragile to receive a vaccine, but is not allowed to submit a medical exemption because it is not a listed CDC contraindication, and that child suffers a life-threatening reaction, such as multiple seizures or encephalitis (both listed on vaccine manufacturer inserts), is the doctor liable, or the state official, who denied the exemption?

Will taxpayers be left footing the bill for the inevitable litigation and damage awards that will ensue? One thing we know for sure, however: the pharmaceutical manufacturers won’t be liable since Congress, in its wisdom, granted them almost blanket liability protection for vaccine injury in 1986.

Proponents of SB 276 argue that doctors are granting many fraudulent exemptions. Indeed, Chemerinsky noted that he believed doctors were granting medical exemptions in “disturbing quantities.” The fact is, even without the adoption of SB 276, the Medical Board of California is investigating doctors for potentially fraudulent exemptions. Of the cases that the Board has investigated to date, there have been no fraudulent medical exemptions found. The idea of rampant fraud is a scare tactic to advance SB 276, and a fantasy.

SB 276 purports to close a loophole that does not exist. The Medical Board already monitors medical exemptions and already has access to medical records as part of its investigative powers. As California Governor Newsom has noted, we need to pause as we think about this bill because of its likely impact on the physician-patient relationship.

Although California does not recognize the legal basis for parents to refuse inoculation for religious and personal beliefs, physicians unquestionably retain the right to protect medically fragile children from likely harm. The U.S. Supreme Court long ago upheld the principle of harm avoidance in the context of vaccine mandates in its 1905 landmark decision Jacobson v. Massachusetts. SB 276, as written, protects only a small percentage of those who cannot be vaccinated but fails to protect other vulnerable children. An individual’s liberty never includes the right to harm another. In this case, in a misguided effort to protect the immunocompromised from a risk that may never occur, many who have previously been injured are being put in harm’s way.

California parents already lost the ability to refuse vaccination under SB 277, and were assured that medically fragile kids would not be put at risk for the “herd” and that they could obtain lawful medical exemptions.

Mary S. Holland, Esq.

Now, SB 276 would remove a doctor’s ability to grant such exemptions and, instead, would vest that awesome authority in a government bureaucrat who likely is not a physician and who will base his or her decision solely on the scant CDC guidelines that fail to account even for the potential adverse reactions the vaccine manufacturers themselves disclose in package inserts under federal law. And this is being done in the name of solving the non-existent problem of widespread fraudulent exemptions when over 99 percent of kindergartners do not even have medical exemptions. California would be better served to preserve the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and to reject SB 276.

Mary Holland, Esq. serves on the board of Children’s Health Defense, teaches at a New York City law school, and is most recently a co-author of the bookThe HPV Vaccine on Trial.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Spread the news:


28 thoughts on “SB 276 Will Violate the Doctor-Patient Relationship by Eliminating Medical Exemptions

    1. Thanks to Dr Azaka for the great work he did for me I was diagnosed of HPV
      human papillomavirus since 2012 and I was taking my
      medications, I wasn’t satisfied i needed to get cure of HPV, I searched
      about some possible cure for HPV i saw a comment
      about Dr Azaka how he cured HPV with his herbal medicine, I contacted
      him and he guided me. I asked for solutions, he started the remedy for my
      health, he sent me the medicine through UPS SPEED POST. I took the medicine
      as prescribed by him and 10 days later i was cured from HPV, Dr. Azaka
      truly you are great, do you need his help also? Why don’t you contact him
      through drazakaherbalhealinghome@gmail.com or what’sap him +234701 159 6726

    1. I swear CA wants to control everything from the direction you face when you park to vaccine exemptions. Why not leave the doctoring to personal physicians who actually know the patient and family history. If vaccines work then you get them and let those that do not want them due to religious beliefs or medical concerns skip them. 73 vaccines by age 17!! Ridiculous. Over 30 vaccines by age 1 year!! I have not had more than 2 in my whole 60 years. Something fishy when they pushing so many vaccines for such little ones

      1. the pharma/ medical industry does not want unvaccinated kids because they are the control group which proves that unvaccinated kids are much healthier.
        plus, removing all exemptions is the plan for when adult mandates roll out.

  1. A vote for this bill is a vote for fascism. Violating our most basic right to make decisions for our child’s welfare and health. – now threatening the careers of doctors who grant them.. As said, when doctors no longer write them who is responsible for the damage that will most assuredly follow?.. The state that has lied about safety as ahs this bill’s corruptauthor (“the only things of concern in vaccines is water” Richard Pan) when there are known neurotoxins in them etc. All this is under the twisted premise the more vaccines the child gets the healthier they are? (and the more big Pharma will invent!) If all the vaccinations required were for diseases PROVEN to be a threat to public health from a not fully vaccinated baby were asked that is one thing. This is a mandate for a REQUIRED endless list exposing the child’s immune system to further stress with every shot, threatening everyone and further compromising the health of the sickest generation of young people in the nation’s history.

  2. the “ wisdom” of Congress in passing the 1986 NCVIA?!?! Mary Holland, WHAT are you saying? we need to make Pharma and the medical / govt industry liable again!

  3. I don’t think any kind of medical attention should be forced on any person. It violates human right laws and it’s supposed to be a free Country in The United States of America. The danger of a medical kidnap is so scary is why I am so against forcing any shot.

Leave a Reply

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