On December 5th, 2016 the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth or SB-18 was proposed in California. The bill was introduced by Senator Richard Pan, the same man who was behind the SB277 mandatory vaccination law, and it may be used for the government to remove parental rights to decide what type of healthcare a child may undergo.
Simply put, the bill would remove medical freedom. It uses a one-size-fits-all mentality, outlining that each child needs to receive the “best” available healthcare possible. Except, who has the right to decide what is best for the child?
While it used to be the parents with the advice of a pediatrician, SB-18 puts that decision in the hands of the government and, in a roundabout way, the pharmaceutical companies (an industry which has spent more on lobbying than any other since 1998, over $3.4 billion).
The SB-18 states that its intent is to “to establish a comprehensive framework that governs the rights of all children and youth in California, outlines the research-based essential needs of California’s children, and establishes standards relating to the health, safety, well-being, early childhood and educational opportunities, and familial supports necessary for all children to succeed.”
Essentially, the government wants to decide what is best for the children.
California recently saw its mandatory vaccination laws in action, which removed parental rights to not vaccinate because of personal beliefs, and the new SB-18 will take away that right when it comes to any medical question. This is concerning for many, as children have been taken away from their parents for choosing non-conventional treatment plans even if the treatment was working.
Can SB-18 Take Children Away from Their Parents?
Another major concern is if this bill will make it easier for the government to legally take away children if they decide it is necessary. Since the government would have the final say when it comes to the healthcare of children, what happens if the parents out of their best judgement decide to go with another treatment? Will parents be fined? Can children be taken away?
Because the bill does not clarify specific instances of how it would be used, it is very subjective and open to interpretation.
And due to Pan’s involvement with mandatory vaccination laws, many are concerned that SB-18 will be used to take children away from families who refuse to vaccinate, even if the children are home-schooled.
That is alarming when another controversial bill was just signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this December.
The 21st Century Cures Act Gives More Power to The Vaccine and Drug Makers
Just signed into law this December, the 21st Century Cures Act gave billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop new drugs and new vaccines, while lowering the licensing standards, allowing the new products appear on the market faster without case-control trials that evaluate the products’ safety.
If new drugs without proper safety studies come into the market, and the government will decide that they are “better” for the children, then it’s clear to see how we may have a serious problem on our hands.
There have been numerous instances when new drugs have caused horrible, sometimes life-altering side effects. Drug makers have been sued and paid millions in damages, but because any new drugs bring significantly more money than the damages, paying off a few lawsuits basically amounts to a mere slap on the wrist. It’s a vicious cycle for consumers who blindly trust their doctors and don’t know about the risks.
The 21st Century Cures Act’s ability to give shortcuts to new drugs may result in even more dangerous drugs being available.
Following the Money: SB-18, Drug Makers and Conflict of Interest
The SB-18 bill poses similar a threat to the 21st Century Cures Act. If passed it will be used based on “research-based evidence,” which unfortunately in today’s world means based on biased studies that are virtually always funded by pharmaceutical companies.
Is the bill really about the children’s rights or something else? When following the money, CBS uncovered years ago that American Academy of Pediatrics has strong financial ties to the vaccine manufacturers (as well as other drug makers).
The vaccine makers gave millions to the American Academy of Pediatrics for medical education classes, conferences, and other purposes. The total amount of money is kept secret. Some numbers were uncovered by the CBS.
Merck gave the academy $433,000 the same year they endorsed their HPV vaccine.
As one member of Congress told CBS, “Money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be independent.”
Watch the full report from CBS:
With so much conflict of interest, it is no wonder that some people question the intentions of medical laws, and whether the growing amount of vaccines is really necessary, another reason to produce more of them and profit from it on a large scale, or somewhere in-between.
Now that we have bills such as SB-18 starting to appear, the question arises: is this bill meant to merely protect the children from neglect? Perhaps. But can it also be used to potentially strip away parents’ rights when it comes to schooling, lifestyle, and perhaps even more importantly, their right to choose what they put in their bodies.
Parents Have Been Losing Their Rights when It Comes To Children For A While
When it comes to questions like – can this law be used to take children away? – many think, “it can’t happen.”
But we have seen forceful interference from the government into children’s lives already, starting with the schools that are slowly being transformed into a surveillance state. Students have been fingerprinted, watched on cameras in classrooms, and analyzed by devices that monitor behavior in various instances, as noted in this report from The Guardian. One company even developed eye scanners to put in school buses as a way to check if the student got on the bus. This surveillance state and these invasions of privacy exist not only in the U.S., but also in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Besides the rise of surveillance technology used on the children, there has also been a rise of cases when children have been forcefully vaccinated in schools. A 12-year-old in Toronto has been forcefully vaccinated with three shots at school against his mom’s consent, reported CBC.
Another 12-year-old was arrested for angrily refusing a Hepatitis B vaccination the school was trying to force on him.
Parents have also been sued for making healthcare decisions that were not in line with mainstream medicine.
For example, the Stephan family of Alberta, Canada was prosecuted after their 18-month-old son Ezekiel tragically passed away, even though the parents took many steps to help the child heal. They took him to a nurse who said the symptoms weren’t life-threatening, and called 911 when things took a turn for the worse, states their Facebook page. The autopsy’s opinion was that the death was caused by meningitis and preventable by a vaccine, so the family was sued. Even though it was confirmed that the type of meningitis Ezekiel had was viral and not preventable by a vaccine, the family still had to suffer punishment (read the family’s story as written by the father from jail).
Meanwhile, vaccines themselves are not completely effective and may cause severe and life-threatening side-effects. Many vaccines are only about 50% effective for just a few years and can cause death and serious injuries in some cases.
In the case of the meningitis (meningococcal) vaccine, it was recommended in 2000 by the CDC that all college freshmen get a dose containing four strains, and it is reported to be about 58% within 2 to 5 years of adolescents getting the shot. A booster shot is also recommended at age 16 because the vaccine doesn’t last.
In 2005, the policy was expanded to include all 11-year-olds. According to CDC stats (see here) from the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), 1,846 serious injuries recorded, including 99 deaths from the vaccine. Many people do not report to VAERS, so actual numbers of injured children is estimated to be even higher.
According to the same database, “invasive meningococcal incidence decreased by more than 60% between 1998 and 2007” and there are now between 1,400 and 3,000 cases reported each year, which is a historic low. Vaccine advocates point to this information as reasoning for mass vaccinating, but parents continue to insist that the risks of the vaccine warrant the need for personal choice.
However, most people don’t realize that the vaccine doesn’t even contain strain B, the main strain associated with more than 50 percent of meningococcal cases and deaths according to the National Vaccine Information Center, especially in children under the age of five. The vaccine is also expensive at over $90 per dose, costing an incredible $1.4 billion per year for four doses for every four million babies born in the U.S. per year.
If you’d like to weigh in on vaccine choice and the pending SB-18 bill, you can contact Senator Pan by clicking here.