ATTORNEYS LETTER GOING TO KEY ASSEMBLY MEMBERS REGARDING UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF FORCED VACCINATION. ANY ATTORNEY CAN JOIN. PLEASE EMAIL THE AUTHORS OF THIS LETTER FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO SIGN ON.

I have predicted a legal storm if the draconian Pan bill SB 277 passes. I still believe it will come to a legal battle and I also believe the collectivist Brave New World Rulers of California will eat crow on what they are doing. However, it will take a lot of work. This letter should give you hope that there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes to protect your rights, and that should this horrible pass, that there will be quick action commencing. I sure hope it doesn’t come to that; but I would sure welcome a face off with Dr. Hinson in a courtroom on these matters where he can testify on behalf of vaccines and I can do the opposite on a level playing field.

Strangely enough, Dr. Hinson and I might not be that far apart on vaccines on one issue only. I can agree that vaccines may have played a role in the decline of communicable diseases; however, I think the vaccine contribution is way overblown as most of these diseases were on the run due to better sanitation long before we introduced mass vaccination.

Where he and I appear to be FAR apart is on the risk benefit ratio. Even IF vaccines were to wipe out all these dread diseases, most of which I had as a child, we just don’t know that there is not a far greater cost to humanity in the form of more diseases and degeneration from vaccine injury. Yes, we might have eliminated the last of polio paralysis with vaccines, or measles, or other “dread” diseases. But we don’t know if that was traded for an equal or greater number of a lifetime of asthma, behavioral disorders, immune dysfunction, etc. Without that knowledge, I maintain it is morally and medically criminal to mandate vaccines. And even if we did know, it is morally and medically violative to mandate any procedure absent proper informed consent.

And another place where I respectfully disagree with Dr. Hinson is that you are forced to get the vaccine. Losing educational Rights is forcing, in my opinion. If not forcing, it is coercion, and no government has the right to perform a medical procedure absent proper informed consent, which prohibits coercion of ANY kind. You will see that in the lawyers’ letter below.

Please pass this on to sympathetic attorneys who might sign on. Feel free to comment on this page. Please appear at the hearing next week in Sacramento. Let your Rulers know their positions are to represent you, not to squash you, your children, your religion, or your medical rights.

LAWYERS OPPOSED TO CALIFORNIA SB 277
1808 Sixth Street Berkeley, California 94710
June 5, 2015

Hon. Rob Bonta, Chair Assembly Health Committee State Capitol, Room 6005 Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Statement of Lawyers Opposed to California SB 277

Dear Chairman Bonta:

We, the undersigned attorneys, strongly oppose SB 277, the proposed California legislation that unnecessarily removes all philosophical and religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements. We join thousands of Americans who conscientiously wish to protect their right to vaccination choice and preserve their right to make personal decisions regarding their children’s health. For multiple reasons, our view is that SB 277 is unconstitutional both under the United States and California Constitutions. Perhaps even more important is our view that enactment of SB 277 is not in the best interests of our children and our nation.

There is no compelling reason to disrupt the current California legal framework in which exemptions to vaccination, both religious and philosophical, are respected and preserved. Public acceptance of vaccination is not in question, and vaccination uptake rates are high and stable.1. There exists no compelling public health emergency that justifies the radical change to California law contained in SB 277. A small percentage of the population elects to exempt themselves from vaccination. Government compulsion to vaccinate – which by its nature is coercive and derogates informed consent – may have unintended consequences that will disrupt the social fabric and likely create enhanced suspicion about the vaccine program and the safety of vaccines.

The global standard is that prior, free and information consent must apply to all medical interventions, including preventive measures like vaccination. This standard has been endorsed by members of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), including the United States, and is the hallmark of a rational approach to medical interventions in civil society. We believe current California law incorporates this foundational principle and should not be disturbed. Government compulsion violates this principle by eviscerating the notion of informed consent.
California’s Constitution guarantees the right to public education. Cal. Const.
Art. 9 § 5. The Supreme Court of California has long unequivocally affirmed this right, stating: ‘We indulge in no hyperbole to assert that society has a compelling interest in affording children an opportunity to attend school.” Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 606, 487 P.2d 1241, 1257 (1971). We believe that vaccine compulsion will not withstand a strict scrutiny analysis to qualify as a sufficiently compelling interest to take the extreme and unconstitutional step of excluding children from their right to education in California. The legal right to a free and appropriate public education is also contained in the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Exclusion of children from school would, under SB 277, violate IDEA.

Furthermore, the United States Constitution protects the right of privacy and religious freedom. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, no state may “deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The United States Supreme Court extends that protection to the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions. Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept. Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990). In the case of children, the courts have consistently held that parents who have the capacity to act in their child’s best interests have the right to make appropriate health care decisions for them. A child is not a “mere creature of the State.” Parham v. J.R., 422 U.S. 584, 602 (1979). SB 277 removes the parent as the decision maker and transfers this power to the department of public health.

Religious exemptions are permissible under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exchange thereof.”

Accordingly, parents should have the religious freedom to oppose vaccination and to not have government dictate their expression of religious belief.
We also must point out that vaccines can cause injury to children. For this reason, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This legislation created the national Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which since its inception has paid more than $3 billion to the victims of vaccine injury.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated that vaccine injury is real and that is “a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body.” Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Medical science cannot explain how or when vaccines cause injury.

There is no way of knowing in advance who might suffer harm from these unavoidably unsafe products. Because of this incomplete knowledge, individuals should have a right to choose whether or not they should vaccinate. Vaccines are not completely risk free nor are they 100% effective in preventing infectious diseases. Given the history of vaccine injury and medical science’s ignorance as to who will be injured and how injury occurs, we respectfully submit that mandating vaccines is irresponsible public policy.
For these and many other reasons that are beyond the scope of this letter but which have been presented to California legislators through in-depth analysis contained in correspondence and testimony, we strongly urge you to decline the temptation to tamper with California’s legislative scheme that works both to achieve public health objectives while protecting the rights of individuals to make conscientious choices regarding their own health.

Please take the responsible course by rejecting SB 277 and avoiding the legal, educational and health decision-making chaos that would follow from enactment of this legislation.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ RJK
LAWYERS OPPOSED TO CALIFORNIA SB 277
Robert J. Krakow, Attorney At Law
[email protected]
Caitlyn Obolsky
[email protected]
Susan C. Lee
[email protected]
Mary Holland [email protected]

1National, State, and Local Area Vaccination Coverage Among Children Aged 19–35 Months — United States, 2012 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) September 13, 2013 / 62(36);733-740
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a1.htm (accessed 6/4/15)