The serum that fuels debate

Though California State Governor Jerry Brown has signed mandatory vaccination bill SB 277 into law, debate continues as local residents attempt to figure out what this means for them.
The momentum for legislation started building last year when several visitors to Disneyland caught measles, and then infected people in other states with the disease.
Since then, the mandatory vaccination bill quickly made its way through the system for the signing, which took place June 30. The bill removes personal exemption as a reason to avoid vaccines and goes into effect January 2016. Children entering school — with the last checkpoint being in seventh grade — must be vaccinated or they cannot be enrolled.
Proponents of the mandate say the legislation is necessary, as the numbers of those who have chosen not to vaccinate their children have grown. With diseases that have been in hibernation for decades surfacing again, they believe that vaccines are instrumental in creating herd immunity.
San Lorenzo Valley resident and mom Christina Wise, believes SB 277 is needed. Having a history of family member’s lives ruined by crippling diseases of yesteryear, Wise admits she wants a healthy setting at school and workplace.
 “Some say that SB 277 legislates against personal choice. I believe that SB 277 legislates against poor choices,” she said. “SB 277 would help to mitigate the potential of an epidemic of preventable diseases by forcing parents to make health choices for their children based on the greater good. If we can do something to make sure there isn’t a resurgence of preventable diseases, why in the world wouldn’t we?”
Opponents believe the legislation chips away at personal freedom to choose. It violates the individual’s control over his or her own health, as well as that of their children. Many opponents doubt the vaccine efficacy since it has been well publicized that those who have been vaccinated can still get sick.
Another San Lorenzo Valley resident and mom Joni Martin, believes in freedom to choose so strongly, that she went to Sacramento numerous times to protest the passing of SB 277.
What she found is that people involved in the movement against SB 277 are not necessarily anti-vaccine. Much like her, they just want to choose their kids’ vaccination schedule, which will now be regulated.
Many involved in the movement are unaffected by the law as their children are outside the checkpoint age. However, these volunteers are still involved because they want equal freedom to choose for everyone.
“I think there’s going to be a lot of people who are going to be surprised in the fall by the way their choices are being limited,” Martin said about the coming school year.
Part of the problem, according to Martin, is that people did not know SB 277 was coming and now do not realize how it affects them. Her goal is to educate everyone about what’s going on.
To top it off, the popularity of personal exemption also roots from the debate about whether vaccines cause autism, auto immune reactions, and other unsavory side effects. The argument over those issues has been ongoing for more than a decade, and is well documented online.
“My family member got Guillan-Barre syndrome following a vaccination,” said Scotts Valley resident and child educator Judy Corbella. “Requiring vaccines of everyone else is like you worrying about bacteria in your kitchen so you use bleach … but you aren’t satisfied so you pass a law that everyone must use bleach as you do.”
While some ponder over whether vaccines are filled with carcinogens, others have faith in vaccination principles.
“If I can get a vaccine that helps to keep my family and my community safe, I would. And I do,” said Wise. “I get the flu vaccine every year, as do my children. If there were a vaccination against a new virus that was running rampant (Ebola, etc.) I would get that too.”
As it stands now, children entering school come 2016 will not be allowed to attend unless they have proof of vaccinations that are mandated by the government. Checkpoints for vaccines take place upon first enrollment in a new school, when before kindergarten, and at seventh grade.
Personal and philosophical exemptions can no longer be used when the law takes effect, but are still currently valid until the law comes into effect.
Those who school away from campus may deviate from the recommended schedule. This includes home school and possibly independent study.
Those who are in the process of catching up on their neglected vaccinations will be permitted to attend.
Individuals with valid medical reasons to avoid vaccination, and special needs, may be exempt. A doctor’s permission would be in order to achieve exemption, and word has it those will not be given out lightly.
“It’s been historically difficult to get a medical exemption, there’s all kinds of pressure on doctors and there are financial incentives,” said Martin.
She learned that doctors may be dropped from insurance companies, or be inclined to stop treating patients who resist vaccination in order to fill a quota. 
“This to me is completely unethical,” Martin said.
In response to all the parental concerns, America’s beloved pediatrician and media personality Dr. Bob Sears issued a statement, which advised parents to relax. He pointed out that California’s vaccination schedule has its own requirements, which are less excessive than what CDC recommends nationally.
“In California only six out of the twelve vaccines are required: DTaP, Polio, Hib, Hep B, MMR, and Chickenpox. The other six vaccines are optional,” the statement said.
But Martin said SB 277 is written in such a way that the government may add any vaccine they wish to the schedule in the future.
“I am very concerned about this blank check,” she said.
One thing to note is that an exemption will be available for additional vaccines; at least that is what Martin knows for now.
Martin was in a group of thousands that opposed SB 277. The alliance formed through social media groups, and exchanged facts and information quickly through the Internet.
Martin and other volunteers attempted to meet with Santa Cruz County’s own Senator Bill Monning, but their pleas fell on deaf ears. According to her, Monning was publically for SB 277.
Martin’s group also met with local Assemlymember Mark Stone to no avail.
Nevertheless, in Sacramento, Martin said legislators acted surprised to see so many well-informed people from diverse backgrounds protesting the bill.
“I feel if we had more time, we would have prevailed,” said Martin. “I really do think that part of the reason they pushed it through so fast is they were sensing we were building momentum and there was a chance it wasn’t going to get through.”
“Once the first child is denied education based on not having an updated vaccine schedule, law suits will start,” said Martin. Then, it will become clearer whether the law is here to stay as is, or evolve.
Meanwhile, a few counties over, Assemblymember Rocky Chávez, who represents California’s 76th Assembly District, which includes Camp Pendleton, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Oceanside and Vista, said he sides with the people against the new law.
“I stand with families in California in continuing the fight for parental rights and to promote an educated healthy California” said Chávez in a statement he issued after the signing of the bill.
Read the text of the bill at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277