by Camille Giglio

During the wee small hours of Wednesday evening the California state senators, on a partisan vote, passed AB 499, 22 ayes to 17 nos. Two Democrats, Senators Correa and Rubio, along with all the Republicans voted no. The bill now goes to the Governor who will have until the last day of September to either sign, veto or send back without his signature - which is the same as approving, basically.

I have decided to let you read the final, official analysis of this bill, including the list of supporters, since it gives the most succinct understanding of what is going on here.

Note that this bill reduces the age of minor consent on all matters sexual from 15 to 12 years of age. Also note that all the defined rights of a minor to consent to sexual activity, treatment and prevention, exclude the parents, yet require the parents and all California citizens to pick up the tab for the services provided. By the way, the idea conveyed by “prevention” here is that children are being prepared by special interest parties, to become sexual objects without the worry of venereal disease or pregnancy. Planned Parenthood and all its minions, as you will notice, are supporters of AB 499.

This bill also removes any thought of an opt-out action for parents to reject the services for their child. Those opt-out papers that you signed two years ago will now be null and void. Kaiser hospitals have been giving these shots to minors without parental knowledge for at least two years. If you signed a form allowing Kaiser to give your minor daughter all the listed shots, you approved Gardasil as far as they are concerned. But, the state hasn’t passed a bill, yet, prohibiting parental rights to demand that their children not receive the shot. They just go around it and ignore it.

The only thing this bill “allows” parents to do is pay for the medical care and mental rehabilitation services when your son or daughter becomes debilitated by the drug Gardasil. The United States Supreme Court, this last March, Bruesewitz v Wyeth, handed down a decision that exempts Pharmaceutical companies from being held responsible for claims of damage as a result of vaccinations. This covers gardasil as well. So, for the Merck and co. or the legislators to claim, glibbly that there are no injuries from gardasil is to beg the question, when it is obvious that there are. The pharmaceuticals - often referred to as Big Pharma - a term which I am now quite willing to use - are protected from having to admit or pay for fraudulent marketing of their products.

Also, be aware, that sons will now also be targeted for receiving the Glaxosmithkline injections called Cervarix which is the same thing as gardasil only a different company.

Here is a quote from a publication called Heartland.time:

“Rather, the Court said, vaccine makers cannot be held liable for negative side effects that parents believe are the result of their products. To be compensated, parents must go before special no-fault tribunals established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Congress created these "Vaccine Courts" with the participation of pharmaceutical companies as a sort of "societal bargain" — as Justice Antonin Scalia noted in the majority decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth — to ensure the future of vaccine availability in the U.S. At the time of the Act, hundreds of injury lawsuits were piling up against vaccine manufacturers, causing them to abandon manufacture of major vaccines and threatening immunizations for the entire country.” (More on Time.com: Q&A: The Dangers of the Anti-Vaccine Movement)

The terms? Injured parties may file for compensation without having to prove cause — they simply have to demonstrate that the injury occurred immediately after vaccination. Further, the claimed injury does not have to be among the listed contraindications on the vaccine package, but must be included in a list of side effects called a Vaccine Table, kept by the Vaccine Court. In exchange, pharmaceutical companies cannot be held liable in civil court for adverse effects, and there is a cap on how much claimants may be awarded. (The fees come from taxes on immunizations.) Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/24/bruesewitz-v-wyeth-what-the-supreme-court-decision-means-for-vaccines/#ixzz1WjlKGrln
____________________________________

Here is the excerpt from final Senate analysis of this bill, written by a member of the Democrat caucus legislative analysis committee:

DIGEST: This bill authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.

ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that a minor who is 12 years of age or older who might have come into contact with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of that disease if the disease or condition is one that is required by law to be reported to the local health officer, or is a sexually transmitted disease as determined by the Director of the Department of Health Services. (Family Code Section 6926 (a))

Existing law provides that the parents of a minor who has consented to medical treatment for a communicable or sexually transmitted disease are not liable for payment for that care. (Family Code Section 6926 (b))

Existing law provides that a minor may consent to medical care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy. (Family Code Section 6925 (a))

Existing law provides that a minor’s consent under minor consent statutes cannot be subject to disaffirmance because of minority. (Family Code Section 6921)

Existing law provides that a minor who is 12 years old or older who is alleged to have been raped may consent to diagnosis and treatment of that condition. (Family Code Section 6927)

Existing law allows a minor alleged to have been sexually assaulted to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis and treatment of that condition. (Family Code Section 6928 (b))

Existing law allows a minor to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of a drug or alcohol-related problem. (Family Code Section 6929 (b))

Existing law provides that a minor may consent to medical or dental care if that minor is over the age of 15, living separate and apart from his or her parents whether with or without his/her parents’ consent, and managing his or her own financial affairs. (Family Code Section 6922 (c))

This bill authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

* Costs shared 50 percent General Fund, 50 percent federal funds

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/11)

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX (co-source) California STD Controllers Association (co-source) Health Officers Association of California (co-source) ACCESS Women’s Health Justice ACT for Women and Girls American Civil Liberties Union American Association of University Women Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice California Adolescent Health Committee California Coalition for Youth California Commission on the Status of Women California Communities United Institute California Family Health Council California Medical Association California National Organization of Women California Nurses Association California Primary Care Association California School Health Centers Association Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Having Our Say Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center Maternal and Child Health Access Mental Health Association in California National Center for Youth Law National Association of Social Workers-California Chapter NARAL-Pro-Choice California National Council of Jewish Women Nevada County Citizens for Choice Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project Los Angeles County Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Reproductive Justice Coalition of Los Angeles Women’s Health Specialists
________________________________________

This fight isn’t over. Stay tuned for news following a Monday meeting of interested organizations.

Probably after this three day weekend, the Governor’s office will be receiving phone calls to accept the voter’s position on certain hot button bills. Keep this phone number handy - 916-445-2841. I’m sure the Governor doesn’t consider this a hot button item, but we have to convince him that it is to parents.

I admit to having a difficult time thinking about all the California children who will in near future begin to suffer from the badly mistaken “good” intentions of the legislators who think they know better than parents, what is good for a child. I know that I, for one, will never be able to accept any Merck drug product or over-the-counter product which can be determined by going to their website.

Share on Facebook