I received a DTaP booster with the birth of each child, and my husband, my parents, and his parents were all boostered as well. It's pretty common now to cocoon the baby with boostered caregivers until first shots.

2.5x75k income is 187k in house. That would buy you nothing in San Diego County, even with another 100k in savings to add to the mortgage.

It does the same to me, but Oxycodone works well for me with no nausea. You could ask for that. Ibuprofen wouldn't cut it if I had serious pain. Eta: I prefer straight Oxycodone to Percocet because the Tylenol in Percocet gives me rebound headaches.

You must be incredibly frugal. Bravo!

It would get you nothing in my area.

I appreciate the question. Not having given it much thought (I'm on my second glass of wine at the start of a holiday weekend), my first thought is that vaccines can only protect those who do not get vaxed when herd immunity is reached (which I understand varies by illness). So, while a Google car might be safer, it isn't that there must be a critical mass of them for protection for all. I would also add that the Obamacare decision set up an interesting precedent re the government forcing you to make a purchase for your health. One could argue that, by making health insurance a requirement (or you pay a penalty), the government is not only trying to make you safer and healthier, but also those around you (with respect to contagion). Anyway, I will give it more thought. I'm sure the wine will help. :)

Many would argue that is the opposite of what has been happening here: http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/04/vaccine-refusal-how-privileged-mothers-leverage-their-privilege-and-harm-the-less-fortunate.html

While there may be some physicians who are this strict, that has not been my experience at all. My son has none of the health conditions you describe (he has no health conditions at all), and yet, a medical exemption has been a non-issue at 3 peds. And these are not the peds who are known to be loose re vaccines. These were just run-of-the-mill peds. If you want a medical exemption, there are plenty of doctors in California who will give them to you. And I expect people will continue to shop around.

120370. (a) If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325, but excluding Section 120380) and Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415 to the extent indicated by the physician’s statement.

The law specifically leaves the decision re a medical exemption to the physician's discretion, but, as I recall, family history was one of the examples mentioned in the law. It was certainly in the legislative history, if anyone watched the hearings on the bill.

It’s no secret that the protection afforded by measles vaccination is crumbling in the US, thanks to parents who have been given bad information turning away from the vaccine. Last year—a year in which the US experienced a record number of measles cases—CDC research found this: “Despite a national MMR vaccination coverage level of 91.9%, one child in 12 in the United States is not receiving their first dose of MMR vaccine on time, underscoring considerable measles susceptibility across the country.†When people prevent or delay their children’s vaccinations, it isn’t only their children they put in danger. The fence of protection that vaccine-induced immunity throws up around all of us protects not only those who are vaccinated, but those who can’t be: infants too young to get the vaccine and anyone who, like the Washington woman, possesses an immune system undermined by medical treatment or biological hazard. (And, most of the time, older people whose immune systems are decaying—but not in the case of measles, because anyone born before 1957, when measles was common, has natural immunity to the disease.) Those unknown vulnerables represent a lot of people: cancer patients undergoing treatment, transplant recipients taking anti-rejection drugs, people living with HIV, anyone with an inborn immune deficiency, anyone getting high doses of steroids—and the 4 million children in the United States who at any point are less than 12 months old, the recommended age for the first dose of measles vaccine. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/02/measles-death-us/

I have never said that I agree with a one-size-fits-all vaccination dogma. Nothing in this law is precluding a parent from vaccinating one at a time to watch for issues. No one is saying that you must follow the CDC schedule, or that you need to have every vaccine in the pipeline going forward. In fact, the PBE was expressly grandfathered into the law for any new vaccine added to the CA-mandated list. The law is not creating a pariah class -- nonvaxers are doing that all for themselves. This law was written by a pediatrician and a concerned mother of a young child, who lives in an area with a low vaccination rate. It was written, not as some sort of powergrab or conspiracy by BIG PHARMA, but because so many people are refusing to vaccinate in our state, without a medical reason, that we are experiencing outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in decades. People are becoming pariahs because the science is not in dispute, and because innocent people are being harmed by the choices made by so many others. I do not dispute that harm from vaccines occurs, and I certainly don't believe that anyone's children are "expendable," but I have not had any difficulty in obtaining a medical exemption where there are legitimate reasons for one. And I know many others who have succeeded in this purportedly Herculean feat. Yes, it is up to the doctor's discretion. But, if you feel that you do not have a good working relationship with your physician, such that your legitimate medical concerns are being disrespected, I would find another doctor. Parents had the right to make these decisions for their children. Unfortunately for public health, too many of them have abused that right. And, IMHO, SB277 is a sensible response to the problem, with numerous educational choices for parents still intact.

http://www.livelylatin.com/holiday-sale/?mc_cid=2907e862f9&mc_eid=586003e751

This article has excellent reporting: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/02/measles-death-us/

Thank you for the citation, Ellie. I appreciate the clarification. I have no personal or anecdotal experience with your second point. We chose a public charter because it works well for my extremely extroverted child. For those that have been injured by vaccines, I am truly sorry. My oldest did have a reaction to one shot, such that his ped filed a report with VAERS. She also noted a medical exemption in his record. He has had 3 different peds in his life, and the exemption has never been an issue. We still vaxed for everything else. Personally, if a ped was giving me grief about a medical exemption (for family or personal history), I would find a new ped.

Update from the Sac Bee re the effort to bring this issue to referendum: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article26005486.html

I understand that, Ellie, which is why my example was of someone filing a PSA. People are arguing that this is a tremendous loss for parental rights, and I just don't see it. In California, you still have numerous options -- both within and outside of the public school context -- for educating your children. No one is going after homeschooling, in large part because there is no such thing as homeschooling under California law. There are small private schools, large private schools, co-ops of parents, public charter schools with/without onsite classes (including so-called homeschooling charters, which are independent study programs), private tutors, PSPs, your local public school, public school outside of your neighborhood via inter and intra-school district choice programs. Parents have tons of choice in educating their kids California, even in a post-SB277 world. I challenge people to name a state that has more options than California re education.

I don't see these issues as at all analogous. How does my choice to homeschool (through a public charter, no less) negatively impact other students in California? You could argue, I suppose, that filing a private school affidavit reduces funding for the public school, but that applies to traditional private school students as well. If anything, California is moving in the opposite direction -- allowing students greater school choice (via traditional charters, homeschooling charters, by choicing into schools other than your neighborhood school). The issue of vaccines is different because the choice to forego vaccination against communicable diseases very well could impact the health of other students in serious ways. Yes, parents have a right to make choices for their children, but not at the expense of the health of other children whose parents made a different decision. And, with respect to vaccines, we simply need herd immunity for them to be effective for the most vulnerable in our society.

http://www.hoagiesgifted.net/early_college.htm

Pushback from the home education community, for one, as you can see in this thread. But second, SB277 faced a greater legal challenge because the CA constitution makes public education a fundamental right. Thus, to place restrictions on that right via a vaccination requirement would require greater scrutiny by the courts. So, they compromised by allowing all these other choices, including enrolling in public charter schools with no onsite component, to overcome likely constitutional legal challenges.

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.

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

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 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.