California Wants To Mandate Adult Vaccines For All Child Care Workers

adult vaccines

Legislators in California want to pass a US adult vaccine mandate with no personal exemptions and criminal penalties for failure to comply.

SB 792 would eliminate an adult’s right to exempt themselves from one, some, or all vaccines.

The required mandatory vaccinations will be for all childcare workers. This will include all private and public school early childhood education programs (Headstart, Private preK and preschools), family daycare and daycare centers.

Every employed adults will be required to be be up-to-date on each vaccine listed on CDC’s adult immunization schedule (except HPV) or be denied employment.

California recently became the first state to remove religious exemptions to those opposing vaccinations for their children. The bill SB277 which was signed into law is to face legal hurdles in court.

The push for vaccinating everyone is now starting by extending to day care workers…but how long before that is extended further?

Vaccine Impact reports:

SB792- The first USwith NO personal exemptions (only medical exemptions approved by a doctor and defined by the bill) and CRIMINAL penalties for failure to comply will be heard in the California Assembly Human Services Committee this Tuesday July 14th at 1:30 in Room 437.

SB 792 would eliminate an adult’s right to exempt themselves from one, some, or all vaccines, a risk-laden medical procedure. This bill would make California the first state to require mandated vaccinations for all childcare workers, including all private and public school early childhood education programs (Headstart, Private preK and preschools), family daycares, and daycare centers.

Commencing September 1, 2016, a person shall not be employed at a family day care home if he or she has not been immunized against influenza, pertussis, and measles. An employee shall receive an influenza vaccination between August 1 and December 1 of each year.
This bill eliminates medical autonomy, crushes religious freedom, undermines personal freedom, and burdens quality providers with a non-optional series of medical interventions in the form of mandated vaccines that are not even 100% effective.

Bill SB 792 excerpt:

This bill, commencing September 1, 2016, would prohibit a day care center or a family day care home from employing any person who has not been immunized in accordance with the schedule for routine adult immunizations, prescribed by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The bill would specify circumstances under which a person would be exempt from the immunization requirement, based on medical safety and current immunity, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes to provisions that set forth qualifications for day care center teachers and applicants for licensure as a family day care center. Because the bill would extend the application of a crime under the act, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Read the entire bill here.

SB792: Assembly Health Committee Hearing, June 30, 2015 (below)


    Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx,
    according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The
    list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors’ names with the
    labels “neutralise,” “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them.

    According to The Australian, Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors who disliked using Vioxx. One email said:

    We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live …
    The plaintiffs’ lawyer gave this assessment:

    It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders
    and thought leaders … if (they) say things you don’t like to hear,
    you have to neutralise them … It does suggest a certain culture within
    the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those who
    disagree with you.
    The Australian:

    The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.

    “Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation,”
    he wrote, … “This has happened to at least eight (clinical)
    investigators … I suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never
    have spoken or written on these issues.”