Drug Companies Donated Millions to California Lawmakers Before Vaccine Bill SB277 was Drafted
Health Impact News Editor Comments
The Sacramento Bee is reporting this week what the alternative media has been reporting for months: California State lawmakers supporting bill SB277 to remove all parental exemptions to vaccines have direct financial ties to the makers of the vaccines.
Pharmaceutical companies and their trade groups gave more than $2 million to current members of the Legislature in 2013-2014, about 2 percent of the total raised, records show. Nine of the top 20 recipients are either legislative leaders or serve on either the Assembly or Senate health committees. Receiving more than $95,000, the top recipient of industry campaign cash is Sen. Richard Pan, a Sacramento Democrat and doctor who is carrying the vaccine bill.
In addition, the industry donated more than $500,000 to outside campaign spending groups that helped elect some current members last year.
Pharmaceutical companies also spent nearly $3 million more during the 2013-2014 legislative session lobbying the Legislature, the governor, the state pharmacists’ board and other agencies, according to state filings. (Source.)
Dr. Richard Pan’s Ties to Big Pharma
Dr. Richard Pan is the author of bill SB277, and as a State Senator he has already used his powerful influence to get the bill passed by the California State Senate. The California State House is expected to vote on the bill next week.
Who is Dr. Pan?
He is an “industry insider” when it comes to the medical industry. He is a teaching faculty member at UC Davis Children’s Hospital, and has served in many organizations that set medical policy and determine medical funding, such as the American Medical Association, the United Way, Sacramento First 5 Commission, Healthy Kids Healthy Future, Sacramento Health Improvement Project, and others. (Source.)
Dr. Pan has flip-flopped on the issue of vaccines and parental choice since becoming a State Senator. He was previously a member of the House where he introduced another bill regarding vaccines, AB2109, which requires parents seeking an exemption to get a doctor’s approval first. During debate of AB2109 back in 2012, he was on record as stating that a parent should have a right to choose to refuse vaccines for their children.
However, seizing on the recent Disney measles hysteria earlier in 2015, he now states it is a matter of “public health” and that parents should be denied that right. Here is a short video clip showing his change in positions:
Calls for Dr. Pan to Step Down Due to Conflict of Interest
An attempt to recall the election of Dr. Pan has begun:
Recall Status: Senator Pan has been served with a Notice of Intent to Recall. The notice was published in the Sacramento Bee on June 6th, 2015.
An official separate Recall Pan committee has been set up. RecallPan.com
Massive Protests in California Against SB277
Many thousands of people across California have turned out to oppose SB277, and many doctors and attorneys have also testified in State hearings against the bill as well. Leaders among African American groups are also voicing their opposition to the bill.
This past week, a petition with 9000 signatures by A Voice for Choice was delivered to “Senators, Assembly Members and the Governor to uphold their constitutional oath.”
PETITION to be delivered to all California Senators, Assembly Members and the Governor Monday June 15, 2015:
To the Honorable Governor and Legislature of the State of California,
We, the undersigned people of California, are writing in regards to the unquestionably unconstitutional Senate Bills 277 and 792, and Assembly Bill 1117. It shocks the conscience to consider that there are Senators and Assembly Members who deem it within their province to utterly annihilate fundamental rights that all of the members of the California Legislature swore to uphold.
A vote in contravention of the knowledge that SB 277, SB 792, and AB 1117 are clearly incomprehensible under both the United States and California constitutional laws, and in cognizance of the fact that despite the fact that vaccines cause demonstrable injuries, and yet under California laws, doctors and manufacturers remain completely immune from liability, is an attestation to the fact that you are mandating a medical procedure for all children, as well as for adults working as preschool and child care workers, without even a glimmer of choice. If you feel comfortable making that decision, knowing full well the potential ramifications of such a vote, then we see no reason why you would not agree to be held personally responsible, both morally and financially, should any subsequent vaccine injuries or deaths occur. We are strongly opposed to SB 277, SB 792, and AB 1117 and demand that you vote against these bills.
America is a Constitutional Republic and the Supreme Law of this Republic guarantees under Article IV, Section 4, a republican form of government for every state.
In the best interests of the People, businesses and industries of California, and to protect them from economic devastation and bodily harm, the government of California will vote “No” on SB277, SB792, and AB1117. These bills violate the U.S. Constitution, in particular, the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments; and the California Constitution, in particular, Article 9; as well as the California Education Code, by which all children are to be afforded a free public education. There is no compelling state interest to deny children in California the right to a public education. And according to the California Department of Public Health, “[v]accination coverage in California is at or near all-time high levels.” (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/HowisCA(11-14).pdf)
The government of California must now stop violating the U.S. and California Constitutions by threatening to deprive California’s children of a public education in an effort to coerce their parents to vaccinate with the following enumerated vaccinations: tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, polio, Hib, and varicella; and any vaccinations “deemed appropriate” in the future, as stated in Section 11 of proposed Senate Bill 277 (Pan).
The government of California must now stop violating the U.S. and California Constitutions by coercing employees and owners of California preschools, child care facilities, and in-home daycares into receiving all the vaccinations listed on the CDC Adult Immunization Schedule, and by punishing non-compliance with loss of employment, loss of business license, fines, and other criminal penalties.
The government of California must now stop violating the U.S. and California Constitutions by incentivizing health care providers of Medi-Cal patients with financial rewards for fully vaccinated patients, and coercing low-income families utilizing Medi-cal to vaccinate their children by offering $125.00 for each fully-vaccinated child in their household. This incentivization is wrongful, immoral, unlawful, and will threaten the health care coverage of these low-income families.
U.S. constitutional case law is overwhelmingly on the side of allowing non-vaccinated children to attend school, and for preschool and day care workers to retain their right to choose. This includes decisions by the California Supreme Court, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. As previously stated, there is absolutely no justification to preclude these children from remaining in a school setting, depriving them of fundamental rights, protected under the California and U.S. constitution, on the basis of “pernicious mythologies” or “irrational fear.” The courts have upheld the rights of teachers, infected with tuberculosis and HIV to remain in their classrooms! (See Arline Supra).
The United States Supreme Court has determined that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and therefore, vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable for any injuries that result from the administration of a vaccine. “[U]navoidably unsafe” products are those that “in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use.” Bruesewitz et al., v. Wyeth, 131 S.Ct. 1068 (2011).
Roe v. Wade.—Roe stands for medical choice regarding ANY procedure: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court explicitly stated, “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (U.S. Supreme Court Case, binding precedent)
See also Lochner–is this “a fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the [police power], or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 56 (1905). (U.S. Supreme Court Case, binding precedent)
Fear of Contagion School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline 480 U.S. 273 (1987) (U.S. Supreme Court Case, binding precedent) — in this U.S. Supreme Court case, the court said “The fact that some persons who have contagious diseases may pose a serious health threat to others under certain circumstances does not justify excluding from the coverage of the Act all persons with actual or perceived contagious diseases.”• “Such exclusion would mean that those accused of being contagious would never have the opportunity to have their condition evaluated in light of medical evidence and a determination made as to whether they were “otherwise qualified.” Rather, they would be vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of mythology…” Here the court is talking about individuals that are actually in fact inflicted with a disease.
The Supreme Court recognized in Arline that a significant risk of transmission was a legitimate concern which could justify exclusion if the risk could not be eliminated through reasonable accommodation; however, it soundly rejected the argument that exclusion could be justified on the basis of “pernicious mythologies” or “irrational fear.” Id. at 1129-30 & n. 12. See also Ray, 666 F.Supp. at 1535. (see Chalk infra)
[T]he Board was unable to demonstrate that the health hazard posed by the hepatitis B carrier children was anything more than a remote possibility. There has never been any definite proof that the disease can be communicated by non-parenteral routes such as saliva. Even assuming there were, the activities that occur in classroom settings were not shown to pose any significant risk that the disease would be transmitted from one child to another. New York State Ass’n of Retarded Children v. Carey, 612 F.2d 644, 650 (2d Cir.1979). Thus, not only is the fear of potential infection by children that are currently infected with Hepatitis B no more than a remote possibility, but the only logical conclusion is that the threat posed by children who are NOT infected with Hepatitis B, and choose to forego that vaccination, even less remotely likely to maybe, possibly, somehow, ever infect anyone else with the disease that they don’t even have. And yet HepB is required at birth, and not receiving a Hepatitis B shot will preclude children from any daycare or school setting in the state.
“Little in science can be proved with complete certainty.” Chalk v. United Stated District Court Central Dist. of California, 840 F.2d 701 (1988) (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case– binding precedent)
The Court recognizes the concern and fear which is flowing from this small community, particularly from the parents of school age children in DeSoto County. However, the Court may not be guided by such community fear, parental pressure, and the possibility of lawsuits. “These obstacles, real as they may be, cannot be allowed to vitiate the rights …” of [the Ray children] . New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 466 F.Supp. 479, 485 (E.D.N.Y.1978), aff’d, 612 F.2d 644 (2d Cir.1979). Chalk v. United Stated District Court Central Dist. of California, 840 F.2d 701 (1998) (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case– binding precedent)(emphasis added).
There will also be a Press Conference in Berkeley California, Monday, June 22 at 11:00 a.m. to address “the unconstitutional aspects of SB 277 as well as informing about the Consumer Protection Amendment in English, Spanish, and Russian.” Details here.
More info on SB277: