Jump to content

Menu

CA personal exemption for vaccines stricken except for homeschoolers


Recommended Posts

Not to side-track your conversation at all, and please forgive my ignorance, but I'm genuinely curious about this...what do you mean "we legally do not have homeschoolers in CA?" I was certain that homeschooling was legal in all 50 states?! Do you just mean that CA homeschoolers need to homeschool under an umbrella group or something? (I'm on the east coast and my state happens to allow me to be a completely independent homeschooler, but I am aware that some states require umbrella groups.) Thanks to anyone who has a chance to fill me in!

 

 

That said, back to vaccines.... I read an article in the last few months (I think it was in the New York Times?) that discussed how CA was having a big issue with tons of folks not vaccinating their kids. IIRC, apparently lots of upper-class types in the wealthy areas of southern California are not currently vaccinating their kids, citing the exemption. It was something like the majority of kindergarteners in one area were NOT vaccinated. So, this new law is possibly in response to California's high rate of non-vaccination. 

 

I'm very torn on the issue. On the one hand, my kids happen to be fully vaccinated because after I did the research, that's what made sense for our family. On the other hand, I am VERY wary of laws that limit parents' rights in any way. Anyway, the whole issue is very interesting; will be interesting to see how parents react as far as homeschooling, etc. goes.  

 

Technically we homeschool as a private school, not labeled as a "homeschool". Or you can sign up through a charter school, online or otherwise. I file an affidavit once a year as a private school.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids attend an ISP charter 2 days a week and we've been told that they are still exempt.  Have you heard otherwise from  this second charter you mentioned? It is my understanding that the "classroom-based instruction" refers to the legal definition for how funds are allocated.

 

  • There is a legal definition of "classroom-based instruction" that is used for apportioning funds to charter school independent study programs and we feel that will be the definition that is applied in this law (since there is no other legal definition). Based on that definition, classroom-based instruction occurs only when students are REQUIRED to spend at least 80 percent of their instructional time in a classroom being taught by the school's credentialed teachers. If the child's instruction does not meet these requirements it is nonclassroom-based instruction.

 
  • Students enrolled in Independent Study Programs (public/charter) are also exempt from immunization requirements if they are not receiving classroom-based instruction meaning, as explained above, they are not required to receive more than 80 percent of their instruction onsite in a classroom being taught by the school's teachers.

 

from: http://www.hsc.org/immunizations.html

 

Thank you for sharing this. I have never come across this interpretation of the law. Most of the people in my area believe that those homeschooling through charters with onsite classes will be required to vax. There has been so much misinformation floating around. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that, and believe that is part of the problem. With so many PBEs, the actual vaccination rate is obscured. Not the best way to go about making public policy/health decisions.  

How about people making their own decisions since it is their own bodies or bodies of their minor children? 

 

Why is that so hard to understand?    Most people will do what makes sense and make these choices with their doctors and it is really no one's business unless one is shown to be actively spreading disease, like some of those nutcases that occasionally spread AIDS or some other transmittable disease because they are pissed off. 

 

Somehow we have decided that this is everyone's business but mental illness situations  where drugged-up people actually do kill others are no one's business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read an article in the last few months (I think it was in the New York Times?) that discussed how CA was having a big issue with tons of folks not vaccinating their kids. IIRC, apparently lots of upper-class types in the wealthy areas of southern California are not currently vaccinating their kids, citing the exemption. It was something like the majority of kindergarteners in one area were NOT vaccinated. So, this new law is possibly in response to California's high rate of non-vaccination. 

 

Whenever vaccination rates are cited for CA in reference to school attendance it is misleading.  The numbers that are counted are the number of PBEs which are required if you are using a delayed schedule or are only skipping one vaccine.  It is sloppy journalism to say # of PBEs = # unvaccinated kids.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically we homeschool as a private school, not labeled as a "homeschool". Or you can sign up through a charter school, online or otherwise. I file an affidavit once a year as a private school.

 

Thank you so much! I appreciate your filling me in! :-)

 

(I'm so curious about how things work from state-to-state, as far as homeschooling goes. Each state is so different, it seems!)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about people making their own decisions since it is their own bodies or bodies of their minor children? 

 

Why is that so hard to understand?    Most people will do what makes sense and make these choices with their doctors and it is really no one's business unless one is shown to be actively spreading disease, like some of those nutcases that occasionally spread AIDS or some other transmittable disease because they are pissed off. 

 

Somehow we have decided that this is everyone's business but mental illness situations  where drugged-up people actually do kill others are no one's business. 

 

That would be fabulous in a world where other people's vaccination choices didn't impact the health of others. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.

 

But, what do I know -- I'm just one of those drugged up people with a mental illness.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever vaccination rates are cited for CA in reference to school attendance it is misleading.  The numbers that are counted are the number of PBEs which are required if you are using a delayed schedule or are only skipping one vaccine.  It is sloppy journalism to say # of PBEs = # unvaccinated kids.  

 

Thanks for the info! I live on the east coast, so I am definitely not well-informed on what's going on in California. I'm learning a lot from this thread!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I encourage you to take the 47% vaccination rate with a large grain of salt.  When I homeschooled through a charter I filed a PBE because I have a personal belief that it's none of the school's business and totally irrelevant to the function of the charter whether my homeschooled kids were vaccinated or not. :)  I have direct knowledge of other families doing something similar.  

 

Another scenario I'm aware of is parents who object to some but not all of the vaccines or want to vaccinate on a different schedule.  

 

Count me among the pro-vax parents who are INFURIATED at this usurpation of the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children.

 

Same here. We're on the PBE list, but my kids are vaccinated. I couldn't be bothered gathering up all the records and didn't think they should need them anyway, so I checked the PBE box on the virtual charter enrollment form. We're vaxed, but there's no vax for lazy yet, so... :D

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here. We're on the PBE list, but my kids are vaccinated. I couldn't be bothered gathering up all the records and didn't think they should need them anyway, so I checked the PBE box on the virtual charter enrollment form. We're vaxed, but there's no vax for lazy yet, so... :D

 

I sooooo need this vax.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The school demanded the form or it would retaliate against my child.  I struck out the form with a line, wrote in some legal verbiage stating the inapplicability to us and that we were not requesting free lunches and sent it in.  Problem solved but that was ridiculous.   No way was I sharing income level or any other non-academic information with a school. 

 

I would have done the same. They don't need my income if I don't qualify. Or frankly, even if I do qualify but don't plan to enroll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be fabulous in a world where other people's vaccination choices didn't impact the health of others. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.

 

But, what do I know -- I'm just one of those drugged up people with a mental illness.

But they don't affect others any more than just living affects others. 

 

Only a few vaccines were given to older people and they are immune to most things.   They didn't need 69 vaccines before the age of 18 to do it either. 

 

At any given time, you are in the vicinity of highly vaccinated, selectively vaccinated, unvaccinated - and most dangerous to the impaired, newly vaccinated individuals.  And scores are not dropping dead or even getting ill everyday.  A rather rare incidence pops up now and then that may or may not have happened regardless of vaccine status since we know that everyone doesn't process them the same way. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, back to vaccines.... I read an article in the last few months (I think it was in the New York Times?) that discussed how CA was having a big issue with tons of folks not vaccinating their kids. IIRC, apparently lots of upper-class types in the wealthy areas of southern California are not currently vaccinating their kids, citing the exemption. It was something like the majority of kindergarteners in one area were NOT vaccinated. So, this new law is possibly in response to California's high rate of non-vaccination. 

 

The higher rates of non-vaccination are in certain pockets. CA is a state overall has borderline numbers for herd immunity. We're in the range, but not by a large margin or anything. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am not sure on is how this will all pertain to DE students, who are technically high school students attending a college.

 

International students required a MMR record and a TB test done recently for my local community colleges. Not sure about dual enrollment or adults taking part time classes. Maybe the community colleges set their own rules.

 

Colleges also have their own requirements for vaccinations so I am guessing each campus has their rules for people who are auditing a class or part time students vs full time students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to side-track your conversation at all, and please forgive my ignorance, but I'm genuinely curious about this...what do you mean "we legally do not have homeschoolers in CA?" I was certain that homeschooling was legal in all 50 states?! Do you just mean that CA homeschoolers need to homeschool under an umbrella group or something? (I'm on the east coast and my state happens to allow me to be a completely independent homeschooler, but I am aware that some states require umbrella groups.) Thanks to anyone who has a chance to fill me in!

 

 

 

Here's the compulsory education code for California--Ellie's version. :D

 

Children who are 6yo by [insert date; it used to be December 2, but it's being moved up] must be enrolled in a public school. Home-based or Internet-based charter schools count as public schools.

 

But...

 

They are exempt from public school attendance if they are enrolled in a private school which has filed a Private School Affidavit with the state of California (Section 48222 of the Ed. Code) (and the affidavit is filed annually between October 1 and 15, Section 33190 of the Ed Code). Private schools are not regulated by the state in any way (other than the necessity to file an affidavit). There is no minimum number of school days, no teacher requirements (teachers must be "persons capable of teaching," no definition of what that means), no standardized testing, no requirements for graduation, and--this is important--no minimum number of students Most homeschoolers will file affidavits each year, with only their own children on it (number of students in each grade, no student names or other identifiers), so a private school might have only one child. Many people will enroll their children in a PSP (Private School Satellite program), which could be anything from a few parents going in together to file the affidavit--one affidavit with all their children on it, so that on paper it looks like a larger school) to a business with several hundred children enrolled. On paper, both affidavits look the same; neither is more legal than the other.

 

So, in answer to your question, no, CA homeschoolers definitely do NOT NOT NOT need to enroll their dc in a PSP (umbrella group). There was some discussion up-thread about why they might want to do that. :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they don't affect others any more than just living affects others. 

 

Only a few vaccines were given to older people and they are immune to most things.   They didn't need 69 vaccines before the age of 18 to do it either. 

 

At any given time, you are in the vicinity of highly vaccinated, selectively vaccinated, unvaccinated - and most dangerous to the impaired, newly vaccinated individuals.  And scores are not dropping dead or even getting ill everyday.  A rather rare incidence pops up now and then that may or may not have happened regardless of vaccine status since we know that everyone doesn't process them the same way. 

 

I honestly think you are just trolling if you think that vaccines don't have an overall net benefit to society. I'm not going to debate the settled science of vaccines, or how choosing not to vax can affect others.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the compulsory education code for California--Ellie's version. :D

 

Children who are 6yo by [insert date; it used to be December 2, but it's being moved up] must be enrolled in a public school. Home-based or Internet-based charter schools count as public schools.

 

But...

 

They are exempt from public school attendance if they are enrolled in a private school which has filed a Private School Affidavit with the state of California (Section 48222 of the Ed. Code) (and the affidavit is filed annually between October 1 and 15, Section 33190 of the Ed Code). Private schools are not regulated by the state in any way (other than the necessity to file an affidavit). There is no minimum number of school days, no teacher requirements (teachers must be "persons capable of teaching," no definition of what that means), no standardized testing, no requirements for graduation, and--this is important--no minimum number of students Most homeschoolers will file affidavits each year, with only their own children on it (number of students in each grade, no student names or other identifiers), so a private school might have only one child. Many people will enroll their children in a PSP (Private School Satellite program), which could be anything from a few parents going in together to file the affidavit--one affidavit with all their children on it, so that on paper it looks like a larger school) to a business with several hundred children enrolled. On paper, both affidavits look the same; neither is more legal than the other.

 

So, in answer to your question, no, CA homeschoolers definitely do NOT NOT NOT need to enroll their dc in a PSP (umbrella group). There was some discussion up-thread about why they might want to do that. :-)

 

I believe the age cutoff is now September 1st, which is one of the reasons so many are choosing to redshirt.

 

Also, AB 713 is currently working its way through the legislature to make Kindy mandatory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the compulsory education code for California--Ellie's version. :D

 

Children who are 6yo by [insert date; it used to be December 2, but it's being moved up] must be enrolled in a public school. Home-based or Internet-based charter schools count as public schools.

 

But...

 

They are exempt from public school attendance if they are enrolled in a private school which has filed a Private School Affidavit with the state of California (Section 48222 of the Ed. Code) (and the affidavit is filed annually between October 1 and 15, Section 33190 of the Ed Code). Private schools are not regulated by the state in any way (other than the necessity to file an affidavit). There is no minimum number of school days, no teacher requirements (teachers must be "persons capable of teaching," no definition of what that means), no standardized testing, no requirements for graduation, and--this is important--no minimum number of students Most homeschoolers will file affidavits each year, with only their own children on it (number of students in each grade, no student names or other identifiers), so a private school might have only one child. Many people will enroll their children in a PSP (Private School Satellite program), which could be anything from a few parents going in together to file the affidavit--one affidavit with all their children on it, so that on paper it looks like a larger school) to a business with several hundred children enrolled. On paper, both affidavits look the same; neither is more legal than the other.

 

So, in answer to your question, no, CA homeschoolers definitely do NOT NOT NOT need to enroll their dc in a PSP (umbrella group). There was some discussion up-thread about why they might want to do that. :-)

 

Thank you; so informative! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, since it is related, there are tort lawyers pushing for negligence liability and civil damages awards where unvaxed people transmit communicable diseases to others. This article popped up on my American Bar Association feed.

 

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/lawyers_quarrel_over_tort_liability_after_the_disneyland_measles_outbreak

Ă¢â‚¬Å“Someone who causes harm in defiance of the consensus of science, health and government authorities should bear those costs,Ă¢â‚¬ she adds. Ă¢â‚¬Å“ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not fair to force others to pay for your own unreasonable choices.Ă¢â‚¬

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, since it is related, there are tort lawyers pushing for negligence liability and civil damages awards where unvaxed people transmit communicable diseases to others. This article popped up on my American Bar Association feed.

 

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_article/lawyers_quarrel_over_tort_liability_after_the_disneyland_measles_outbreak

 

Ă¢â‚¬Å“Someone who causes harm in defiance of the consensus of science, health and government authorities should bear those costs,Ă¢â‚¬ she adds. Ă¢â‚¬Å“ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not fair to force others to pay for your own unreasonable choices.Ă¢â‚¬

 

How would one go about proving who they got a disease from? Some of these diseases have long development times. It's not like a car accident or something where you can easily prove who caused you to become ill. If someone in your kid's school gets measles and they are unvaccinated, and your kids gets measles, how do you know it came from them and not the other person who gave the unvaxed kid measles in the first place? If there's a measles outbreak at a school, which person gave your kid the measles?

 

I don't see this going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would one go about proving who they got a disease from? Some of these diseases have long development times. It's not like a car accident or something where you can easily prove who caused you to become ill. If someone in your kid's school gets measles and they are unvaccinated, and your kids gets measles, how do you know it came from them and not the other person who gave the unvaxed kid measles in the first place? If there's a measles outbreak at a school, which person gave your kid the measles?

 

I don't see this going anywhere.

 

I'm not an epidemiologist, but I don't see it out of the realm of possibility that one would simply hire an expert to testify to this issue. Tort lawyers use expert testimony all the time in medical negligence cases. I'm not advocating for tort liability, though I do find it an interesting question, and one which I think that people should be aware when they make these choices.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immigrants are required to prove they have been immunized before they can get a green card. They don't get to have a personal exemption, or do they? I scream discrimination. :)

 

I handled my husband's immigration to the U.S. (from Canada), and he had to prove that he was vaxed or show titers with immunity. Otherwise, he got the jab.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an epidemiologist, but I don't see it out of the realm of possibility that one would simply hire an expert to testify to this issue. Tort lawyers use expert testimony all the time in medical negligence cases. I'm not advocating for tort liability, though I do find it an interesting question, and one which I think that people should be aware when they make these choices.  

 

You're a lawyer, correct? You probably know better than I do, but....

 

I'm not sure laws should be passed just to make people think twice. We should be create laws that we are prepared to enforce. 

 

In a world in which measles rash shows up 7-21 days after exposure, and is viable on surfaces for up to 2 hours, it would be a nightmare to pinpoint any instance of the disease to exposure to a particular person. Perhaps it seems Johnny got it from Sally at school, but actually Johnny got it from a woman who sneezed on him at church, and Sally got it from handling the same woman's shopping cart at the store.

 

It's certainly an argument for vaccination and herd immunity, but I don't see it being an argument for actual financial damages/liability. Having an epidemiologist guess how an epidemic unfolds is one thing; proving a particular individual was absolutely responsible is another.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the intent was not to turn this into a debate thread?

 

Personally, I don't buy into all the fearmongering and slippery slope arguments. The fact is that there are pockets of low vaccination all throughout California. As I mentioned, my son's charter school has a 47% vaccination rate -- well below herd immunity. And there are numerous schools throughout the state that have these sorts of abysmal rates of vaccination.

 

Consequently, with so many people attempting to hide in the herd, outbreaks keep popping up. There was the 2010 outbreak of Pertussis, which had more than 9,000 cases. There was the Measles outbreak at Disneyland. There was another 10,000 cases of Pertussis in 2014. An unvaxed boy in Spain just died of Diphtheria. These are preventable deaths.

 

The PBE was not working. Irresponsible (and one could argue, selfish) parents of healthy children were not vaxing because of "research" they did on the internet or on mommy message boards -- most of whom can't understand a PubMed article and rely on Mercola and sites with an obviously anti-vaccine agenda for their "research."

 

And I say this as someone who had the same fears when my first son was born in 2009. This was pre-Wakefield being discredited and post-Dr. Sears' book -- both of which put a lot of fear into my mind about the safety of vaccines. As a result, my oldest was very delayed and selectively vaxed. In the 6 years since my oldest was born, a lot of research has been done into the safety of vaccines (including the aluminum load -- to Sears' point), the CDC schedule (the 'so many all at once' argument), the Autism connection (let's repeat: there is none). So, when my second child came around, I felt much more confident about vaccinating him on schedule. Thankfully, he has been no worse for the wear.

 

So, I am sensitive to the concerns that parents have about vaccines. But, as the pockets of low vaccination rates and repeated outbreaks evidence, the current system wasn't working. I am not saying that  SB277 is going to be a panacea, but, IMHO, it is a sensible move in the right direction. And other states will be watching to see how this plays out.

AB109 was working. PBE was dropping.  And PBE is a catch all for not having every single box filled, hardly a good measure of actual vaccine rates. The fear mongering has been 100% of the end of those pushing the bill. The number of kids that fall under this law from the Disney outbreak would be something like 18 (meaning of those who caught the measles, only 18 were under or non vaccinated school age kids). And who knows if they were CA residents. This law is a mad dash for money and control. This whole thing, like the shifting of members in the education committee, the utter lack of intelligent answers about a law he supposedly wrote (Pan), not to mention the straight up lies under oath, has been some House of Cards -hit. It's shameful.

 

And we vaccinate. 

 

As for this being comparable to MS or WV, I think the fight against those laws just didn't make it high enough. Residents of CA have more resources, both people and money. We have a better chance of getting this case more closely examined in light of constitutional law. There is a lot more case law than just Jacobson v Mass, which was in about the state's right to force ADULT vaccinations during an active small pox outbreak. That's the one that people keep siting. Much has been added to it specifying what constitutes compelling state interest.

 

This seems like a total no brainer to me. To hold compulsory education hostage for a medical procedure (which has risks- all medical procedures do) is wrong.  Risks, by the way, that the manufacturer is protected from being sued over. Why do they need protection if this is a risk-free procedure? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a lawyer, correct? You probably know better than I do, but....

 

I'm not sure laws should be passed just to make people think twice. We should be create laws that we are prepared to enforce. 

 

In a world in which measles rash shows up 7-21 days after exposure, and is viable on surfaces for up to 2 hours, it would be a nightmare to pinpoint any instance of the disease to exposure to a particular person. Perhaps it seems Johnny got it from Sally at school, but actually Johnny got it from a woman who sneezed on him at church, and Sally got it from handling the same woman's shopping cart at the store.

 

It's certainly an argument for vaccination and herd immunity, but I don't see it being an argument for actual financial damages/liability. Having an epidemiologist guess how an epidemic unfolds is one thing; proving a particular individual was absolutely responsible is another.

 

I'm a retired lawyer. I no longer practice. Thankfully. :)

 

It's not so much that a law would need to passed to create new civil liability, but rather tort law may be evolving in that direction based on existing caselaw/precedent. The ABA discussion is currently a theoretical one among tort law experts. But, believe me, if tort lawyers think they can make money off these outbreaks, they will. And if I was not vaccinating my children, without a medical reason to make that choice, I would be very concerned that my choice could impact my pocketbook in the event of an outbreak.

 

The issue you raise is a factual question, which is one for the jury, based on the evidence (the expert would render an opinion, testify to the reliability of the opinion, etc.). The larger issue that I am raising is that negligence/tort law may be evolving to encompass these types of claims against people choosing not to vaccinate -- something which many people many not have considered.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a retired lawyer. I no longer practice. Thankfully. :)

 

It's not so much that a law would need to passed to create new civil liability, but rather tort law may be evolving in that direction based on existing caselaw/precedent. The ABA discussion is currently a theoretical one among tort law experts. But, believe me, if tort lawyers think they can make money off these outbreaks, they will. And if I was not vaccinating my children, without a medical reason to make that choice, I would be very concerned that my choice could impact my pocketbook in the event of an outbreak.

 

The issue you raise is a factual question, which is one for the jury, based on the evidence (the expert would speak to the facts, testify to the reliability of the opinion, etc.). The larger issue that I am raising is that negligence/tort law may be evolving to encompass these types of claims against people choosing not to vaccinate -- something which many people many not have considered.

 

So do you see an industry of insurance for unvaccinated families?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AB109 was working. PBE was dropping.  And PBE is a catch all for not having every single box filled, hardly a good measure of actual vaccine rates. The fear mongering has been 100% of the end of those pushing the bill. The number of kids that fall under this law from the Disney outbreak would be something like 18 (meaning of those who caught the measles, only 18 were under or non vaccinated school age kids). And who knows if they were CA residents. This law is a mad dash for money and control. This whole thing, like the shifting of members in the education committee, the utter lack of intelligent answers about a law he supposedly wrote (Pan), not to mention the straight up lies under oath, has been some House of Cards -hit. It's shameful.

 

And we vaccinate. 

 

As for this being comparable to MS or WV, I think the fight against those laws just didn't make it high enough. Residents of CA have more resources, both people and money. We have a better chance of getting this case more closely examined in light of constitutional law. There is a lot more case law than just Jacobson v Mass, which was in about the state's right to force ADULT vaccinations during an active small pox outbreak. That's the one that people keep siting. Much has been added to it specifying what constitutes compelling state interest.

 

This seems like a total no brainer to me. To hold compulsory education hostage for a medical procedure (which has risks- all medical procedures do) is wrong.  Risks, by the way, that the manufacturer is protected from being sued over. Why do they need protection if this is a risk-free procedure? 

 

I agree with you that there will be a legal battle over this bill. The issue is not going away -- not by any means. And, I agree that Californians have more resources to make this a protracted legal battle than what was mounted in MS and WV. I don't know enough about the legal issues (the Cal. Education Code, precedence re vaccines, etc. -- not my area of practice) to opine on whether the law will eventually pass muster. The law was co-authored by an attorney, so presumably a fair amount of legal research went into the bill. 

 

Re vaccines being risk-free... I don't think anyone has made that claim, which is why the U.S. instituted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which has paid out millions of dollars in damages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that there will be a legal battle over this bill. The issue is not going away -- not by any means. And, I agree that Californians have more resources to make this a protracted legal battle than what was mounted in MS and WV. I don't know enough about the legal issues (the Cal. Education Code, precedence re vaccines, etc. -- not my area of practice) to opine on whether the law will pass eventually muster. The law was co-authored by an attorney, so presumably a fair amount of legal research went into the bill. 

 

Didn't the one or both of the WV and MS cases go to the U.S. Supreme court and was upheld? I seem to remember this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you see an industry of insurance for unvaccinated families?

 

I'm not sure how politically palatable it would be to underwrite them. It's an interesting question. We have homeowner's insurance that covers a variety of negligence situations, and general liability umbrellas. I honestly don't know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't the one or both of the WV and MS cases go to the U.S. Supreme court and was upheld? I seem to remember this.

 

The Massachusetts case is the one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe that the others were upheld in their state courts. There was also this recently:

 

http://rutherford.org/publications_resources/Press%20Release/us_supreme_court_refuses_to_hear_wv_immunization_case_lets_stand_lower_cour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how politically palatable it would be to underwrite them. It's an interesting question. We have homeowner's insurance that covers a variety of negligence situations, and general liability umbrellas. I honestly don't know. 

 

I was just thinking it was when actuaries get involved that the rubber actually meets the road. They'd get the stats and risks down much better than the general public and the government. They would look behind the exemptions and politicking and find out the real risk before underwriting.

 

I wish we could have access to that kind of data without the liability/insurance piece. It would be interesting to see how much risk there actually is for different lifestyles and locations.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think you are just trolling if you think that vaccines don't have an overall net benefit to society. I'm not going to debate the settled science of vaccines, or how choosing not to vax can affect others.  

Right, I'm just trolling because I can see the legitimate points on both sides.

I've been around here since, oh...the nineties, I think (or quite awhile anyway).   Long time for a troll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that there will be a legal battle over this bill. The issue is not going away -- not by any means. And, I agree that Californians have more resources to make this a protracted legal battle than what was mounted in MS and WV. I don't know enough about the legal issues (the Cal. Education Code, precedence re vaccines, etc. -- not my area of practice) to opine on whether the law will eventually pass muster. The law was co-authored by an attorney, so presumably a fair amount of legal research went into the bill. 

 

Re vaccines being risk-free... I don't think anyone has made that claim, which is why the U.S. instituted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which has paid out millions of dollars in damages. 

Try Three BILLION dollars so far.

 

Are you not slightly curious why the NVIC was created or why it has paid out so much in claims, even while denying two out of three claims?    

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a retired lawyer. I no longer practice. Thankfully. :)

 

It's not so much that a law would need to passed to create new civil liability, but rather tort law may be evolving in that direction based on existing caselaw/precedent. The ABA discussion is currently a theoretical one among tort law experts. But, believe me, if tort lawyers think they can make money off these outbreaks, they will. And if I was not vaccinating my children, without a medical reason to make that choice, I would be very concerned that my choice could impact my pocketbook in the event of an outbreak.

 

The issue you raise is a factual question, which is one for the jury, based on the evidence (the expert would render an opinion, testify to the reliability of the opinion, etc.). The larger issue that I am raising is that negligence/tort law may be evolving to encompass these types of claims against people choosing not to vaccinate -- something which many people many not have considered.

And which is unfeasible, ill-conceived,  and should never occur on this planet. 

 

It is virtually impossible to identify for certain the one of several hundred avenues in any given day that one may have to be exposed to any illness, except possibly when you are a second victim, and you know you caught it from your child since you haven't left the house while caring for him/her. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's obnoxious?

 

1. Opening this thread to try to learn how the new law will affect families, especially homeschoolers in CA, and

 

2. appreciating the people who said, "Let's not do a whole vax debate again, let's just talk about what this means," but

 

3. almost instantly realizing that NOPE. That's not possible.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's obnoxious?

 

1. Opening this thread to try to learn how the new law will affect families, especially homeschoolers in CA, and

 

2. appreciating the people who said, "Let's not do a whole vax debate again, let's just talk about what this means," but

 

3. almost instantly realizing that NOPE. That's not possible.

 

I'm sorry, I really am trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the age cutoff is now September 1st, which is one of the reasons so many are choosing to redshirt.

 

Also, AB 713 is currently working its way through the legislature to make Kindy mandatory.

 

Why would a September 1 cut-off cause people to red-shirt any more than a December 2 cut-off? :confused1: Which is a whole other thread, lol. FTR, Mr. Ellie grew up in California; his birthday is September 7, so he was "young" for his grade. He is sure glad that his parents didn't suggest making him wait a whole year to start school. :-)

 

I hope Californians are more successful blocking kindergarten legislation than they were the immunization stuff. Also, I hope they seriously reconsider reelecting the [insert really bad names] in the legislature who voted in favor of this instead of the way their constituents wanted them to vote.  :cursing: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 My son's charter had a 47% vax rate, 

 

I know others have already commented on this, but I'll add my 2 cents. I also homeschool with a charter school in San Diego. I think we are with the same one. I have 3 kids enrolled with a PBE. They aren't completely unvaccinated, but my only choice is give them everything or PBE. So PBE it is, for now anyways.

 

The law that recently went into affect that required your PBE to be signed by a doctor had significantly raised vaccinations rates already. It's a shame that this bill passed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you; so informative! :-)

There is one other way to homeschool, and that is through a certified tutor. I believe this is more popular in the child acting circles in Hollywood. When I said that homeschooling is not technically allowed in California, I mean that the term homeschooling is not technically in any codified language. In fact, I think this legislation may be the first. Homeschoolers can either enroll in a public charter umbrella or private school partnership, hire a tutor, or file as their own private school.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I really don't want to debate the merits of vaccination, I do think it is important to note the loss of parental rights in this situation. As homeschoolers, this should be a primary concern, and the HSLDA does not support this legislation. I don't like fearmongering, but who is to say the same logic in this bill couldn't be applied to education in the future? Homeschooling was under attack in CA just a few years ago. If you believe it is worth it to relinquish those rights in exchange for safety or that people don't have the right to put others at risk with their freedom of choice in personal risk, that is valid. However, I would leave you with this quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Those who give essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." We may agree to disagree, but I feel parental rights is a cornerstone belief for homeschoolers.

 

I do believe this will affect homeschooling in the future, and I am very interested to see how this plays out in the charter schools, especially, given the definition of home instruction. Every bill has intended and unintended consequences.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one other way to homeschool, and that is through a certified tutor. I believe this is more popular in the child acting circles in Hollywood. When I said that homeschooling is not technically allowed in California, I mean that the term homeschooling is not technically in any codified language. In fact, I think this legislation may be the first. Homeschoolers can either enroll in a public charter umbrella or private school partnership, hire a tutor, or file as their own private school.

 

You are correct. Students are exempt from public school attendance if they are tutored full-time by a credentialed teacher. This is what Will Smith does (it made big news a few years ago). It is separate and distinct from the private school exemption, especially because it requires certified teachers while private schools do not.

 

A charter school is in no way an "umbrella." It is a public school. Children enrolled in charter schools are public school students and their parents don't need an "umbrella." An umbrella school is one used by homeschoolers in other states as a legal option to teach their children at home, and their children are not public school students.

 

I'm assuming by "private school partnership" you are referring to a Private School Satellite Program (PSP). Legally, and on paper, this is no different from the private schools that parents establish in their own homes by filing their own affidavits. I believe it is important not to introduce terms into any conversation which are not used in official terminology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. Students are exempt from public school attendance if they are tutored full-time by a credentialed teacher. This is what Will Smith does (it made big news a few years ago). It is separate and distinct from the private school exemption, especially because it requires certified teachers while private schools do not.

 

A charter school is in no way an "umbrella." It is a public school. Children enrolled in charter schools are public school students and their parents don't need an "umbrella." An umbrella school is one used by homeschoolers in other states as a legal option to teach their children at home, and their children are not public school students.

 

I'm assuming by "private school partnership" you are referring to a Private School Satellite Program (PSP). Legally, and on paper, this is no different from the private schools that parents establish in their own homes by filing their own affidavits. I believe it is important not to introduce terms into any conversation which are not used in official terminology.

Yes, they are public school students. Sorry, I mispoke, and wrote out the wrong longhand form for PSP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me how this bill will be enforced?  Let's say 50 families in Malibu decide they will not fully vaccinate regardless of the legislation, are their children not allowed in school?  If so, are they considered truant if the parents just keep them home? 

 

This is a sincere question and is not posted to start any sort of fear mongering.  I know the Vaccine Gestapo won't come through their children's windows and jab them in the middle of the night.  I honestly would like to know how this bill will be enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me how this bill will be enforced?  Let's say 50 families in Malibu decide they will not fully vaccinate regardless of the legislation, are their children not allowed in school?  If so, are they considered truant if the parents just keep them home? 

 

This is a sincere question and is not posted to start any sort of fear mongering.  I know the Vaccine Gestapo won't come through their children's windows and jab them in the middle of the night.  I honestly would like to know how this bill will be enforced.

 

I'm assuming they would use the penal code to enforce it since in CA truancy is a crime.

 

The CA penal code states that parents whose children are subject to compulsory education and are considered truant as defined by the Education Code  "is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. "

 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm assuming they would use the penal code to enforce it since in CA truancy is a crime.

 

The CA penal code states that parents whose children are subject to compulsory education and are considered truant as defined by the Education Code  "is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. "

 

 

 

And if they don't go that far, perhaps fines for truancy as stated in the CA EC:

 

EC Section 48293 ©: The court may also order that the person convicted of the violation of subdivision (a) immediately enroll or re-enroll the pupil in the appropriate school or educational program and provide proof of enrollment to the court. Willful violation of an order under this subdivision is punishable as civil contempt with a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000). An order of contempt under this subdivision shall not include imprisonment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me how this bill will be enforced?  Let's say 50 families in Malibu decide they will not fully vaccinate regardless of the legislation, are their children not allowed in school?  If so, are they considered truant if the parents just keep them home? 

 

This is a sincere question and is not posted to start any sort of fear mongering.  I know the Vaccine Gestapo won't come through their children's windows and jab them in the middle of the night.  I honestly would like to know how this bill will be enforced.

 

I think, don't quote me, parents would either face truancy charges or be pushed to enroll in "alternate" off campus programs (aka K12 online schooling) or file a PSA (ie homeschool).

 

I think the online school would be the most likely option, but I'm 100% sure that the kid would not be allowed to enroll on campus and if the parents just "dropped them off" on the 1st day of class, they would be held in the office and sent home.

 

Truancy would most likely come into play if the parents refused any of the other options. In other words their child is not enrolled ANYWHERE and is of compulsory school age.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disagreeing with you on the merits of the argument, I'm just pointing out the titers business is not in the text of the bill. It seems it was either overlooked or the intention is the letter of the law and vaccinating those who've had the disease.

 

Or maybe that vaccine would fall under a medical exemption and the doctor could write a note if they could verify. I could not get verification for the fact that my kids had chicken pox. I just kept them home until it was over and never called the doctor. Not that it would have helped anyway, as the doctors don't want you to come in. Anyone could call the doctor's office, describe the chicken pox and be told to stay home, and have it go into the child's record. 

 

Actually, I do have one picture of DS's chicken pox, as he wanted to see what his back looked like.  :tongue_smilie:

 

I don't know what the law in California will entail. I do know what I do as a practicing pediatrician in a state that allows medical and religious exemptions but not personal exemptions. If someone has a history of chickenpox that was not diagnosed by a physician, we have them get titers to prove immunity if they do not want to get the vaccine. If we have documentation that a physician diagnosed chickenpox we can write in "Had disease and the date" where we would normally record the vaccine date. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they are public school students. Sorry, I mispoke, and wrote out the wrong longhand form for PSP.

 

It would be enforced by not allowing children who are not fully vaxed into public school classrooms. Parents then have the *choice* to either homeschool with a private school affidavit, enroll in a public independent study program with no onsite classes, enroll in a PSP, hire a credentialed teacher to tutor them, or allow their children to be truant. That still sounds like a whole lot of choice to me.

 

At the end of the day, no man is an island. Public school is a social compact between parents and the school. If you don't want to participate in the social compact because you want to teach your religion or because you don't want to receive all the state-mandated vaccines, that's fine. You still have the choice to do something other than enroll your child in a public school classroom. In fact, in California, you can still even have them in a public school and receive thousands of dollars in funds from the state to pay for the education. You simply have to enroll them in a public independent study program without onsite classes.

 

What you no longer have the right to do is to enjoy the benefits of classroom instruction while refusing vaccines, without legitimate medical reasons, hiding in the herd (that the rest of us have risked our children to create), and risk infecting your fellow classmates in school. It seems perfectly fair to me.    

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...