In 1995, as Vice Chair of the Health Committee, I had the opportunity to participate in then Governor Pete Wilson’s package of education bills, specifically the bill requiring students to receive mandatory vaccinations as a condition of going to school. Prior to then, California had no such requirement, and, quite frankly, communicable disease in the schools was not a big problem. I negotiated a compromise with the Democrats and Governor Wilson agreeing to the mandatory vaccinations, as long as parents had an opt-out opportunity. I believed then (and believe now) a state that believes in freedom owed its citizens the freedom to not have to be forced to take drugs, any drugs, vaccinations or otherwise. Governor Wilson agreed, and the mandatory vaccination law took effect, with the parental conscience clause a compromise. When we consider that we had no law before that, and a conscience clause for the last 20 years without rampant communicable disease, I would say the compromise worked well.
Within the last year, we saw 10 cases of measles at Disneyland (hardly a typical school venue), and the whole world thought our children were going to die. Based on 10 cases over at least 40 years, the Legislature wants to upset the delicate balance of public health and personal freedom, and through Senate Bill 277, wants to remove the parental conscience provision.
Yesterday, Senate Bill 277, the bill to remove that parental conscience provision, saw its first hearing in the California Assembly, as the Health Committee contemplated the bill that would make vaccinations mandatory for all children entering into public or private schools (with some exceptions for medical circumstances). This legislation undoes a prevision I made sure was included into California law years ago that protected parents from the state’s influence over their children’s personal health decisions.
It is discouraging to see the work that I have done to protect California’s families in jeopardy. However, the debate surrounding SB 277 now, and the parental conscience clause 20 years ago, exemplifies the privileges we hold in a nation that allows for all sides of an issue, at the very least, to be heard. Protesters at the capitol yesterday made it clear that the opposing arguments of SB 277 are backed by a passion we find so often when confronting legislation that will directly impact the people in our everyday lives. People are willing to stand up and make noise for the things they care most about – their family, friends and immediate community.
In an effort to modernize the way people “speak up” to their elected officials, iCitizen has created a new platform for individuals to be heard. This week, they will be focusing on engaging with both sides of the SB 277 debate with an ad running on cable news networks, encouraging those contributing to the conversation to chime in through their neutral mobile platform. At the start of next week, iCitizen will share participants’ reactions with the California assembly, as they continue to contemplate the bill.
iCitizen facilitates two basic practices that allow for the public to become more civically engaged.
First, it aggregates unbiased information on pending legislation and elected officials based on subject matter categories that cover the most pressing issues currently under debate in legislatures and assemblies across the country. Second, the platform provides polling questions and direct contact links to electeds, allowing users to weigh in on the topics they are most involved with those making the decisions.
As the state of California and the Assembly that represents us continues to reflect on the implications of passing SB 277, let it be a reminder that democracy is an exercise that is only successful when we participate. No matter the outcome of the Assembly’s decision, the public dialogue this bill has created will be recognized. This recognition is the same impression iCitizen is looking to create for all of the issues facing America today and I’d encourage you to join in and make your voice heard too.