10,001

Gardasil Bill Approved by California Legislature
Tuesday, September 6, 2011 - By Judie Brown

By Camille Giglio

During the wee small hours of Wednesday evening [8/31/11], the California state Senators, on a partisan vote, gave final approval to AB 499, the mandated Gardasil vaccination for minors. There were 22 ayes and 17 nos. Along with all the Republicans, two Democrats—Senators Correa and Rubio—voted no. The bill now goes to the governor, who will have until the last day of September to either sign, veto, or send it back without his signature—which is basically the same as approving it. 

The most important sentence in this two-sentence diabolical bill states that: “A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.” 

The premise for this bill as promoted by its manufacturer, Merck and Co., is Gardasil’s ability to prevent a sexually active person from suffering the consequences of four out of a possible 40 variants of cancer, including genital warts. You notice that since the bill states only that “a minor” may consent, the injections will also be provided now for boys as an equity issue. They will receive the GlaxoSmithKline shots called Cervarix.

Currently, in California, the age of consent begins at 16 legalizing a minor’s right, sans parental knowledge, to consent to abortion, contraceptives, venereal disease treatment, and mental health services. The mental health part passed only last year. Plus now, it is not only a matter of treatment for a disease contracted through sexual activity. It is the prevention of the disease that is promised to those who become sexually active.

Note that though this bill reduces the age of minor consent on all matters sexual from 15 to 12 years of age, it also requires the parents and all California citizens to pick up the tab for the “services” provided.

In fact, everybody in the nation will be contributing through their taxes because, in California, these services are paid 50 percent by federal dollars and 50 percent by state (except for abortions, which are all California state tax dollars). Payment may come through any one of three programs: MediCal, California’s version of federal Medicaid; The Healthy Families Program (also a MediCal program); or the California Minor Consent account.

There are an estimated 900,000 plus minor children between the ages of 12 and 17 living in California. California will be paying $10 on the head to every qualified person who injects your child with Gardasil. Federal dollars will pay for the purchase of Gardasil, which is a series of 3 injections over 6 months, and is estimated at a cost of $350 to $500.

Payment for this part comes from the federal Vaccines for Children, which is a program of the federal Centers for Disease Control.

The bill was endorsed by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood plus a vast array of their tax supported minions including the LGBT Center, Kaiser Hospitals, and several governmental health care provider groups. They will all profit at the taxpayers’ expense by receiving tax dollars to provide these services. 

This bill also removes any thought of an opt-out action for parents to reject the services on behalf of their children. Those opt-out papers at school or at the doctor’s office that you signed two years ago will now be null and void. Kaiser hospitals have been giving these shots to minors without benefit of legal protection and without parental awareness for at least two years. If you signed a form allowing Kaiser to give your minor daughter all the listed shots including something referred to as HPV, you approved Gardasil as far as they are concerned. 

The only thing this bill “allows” parents to do is pay for the medical care and mental rehabilitation services when your son or daughter becomes debilitated by the drug Gardasil. This last March, in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision that exempts pharmaceutical companies from being held responsible for claims of damage as a result of vaccinations. According to Justice Antonin Scalia, in the writings of the majority decision, this decision was “to protect the integrity of vaccines.” This covers Gardasil as well. So, for Merck and Co. or the legislators to claim glibly that there are no injuries from Gardasil is to beg the question, as it is obvious that there are serious side effects. The pharmaceuticals—often referred to as Big Pharma—are protected from having to admit to or pay for harm resulting from their products. 

Here is a quote from a publication called Heartland.time and entitled, “Bruesewitz v. Wyeth: What the Supreme Court Decision Means for Vaccines”: 

Rather, the Court said, vaccine makers cannot be held liable for negative side effects that parents believe are the result of their products. To be compensated, parents must go before special no-fault tribunals established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Congress created these “Vaccine Courts” with the participation of pharmaceutical companies as a sort of “societal bargain”—as Justice Antonin Scalia noted in the majority decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth—to ensure the future of vaccine availability in the U.S. At the time of the Act, hundreds of injury lawsuits were piling up against vaccine manufacturers, causing them to abandon manufacture of major vaccines and threatening immunizations for the entire country.” (More on Time.com: Q&A: The Dangers of the Anti-Vaccine Movement)

The terms? Injured parties may file for compensation without having to prove cause—they simply have to demonstrate that the injury occurred immediately after vaccination. Further, the claimed injury does not have to be among the listed contraindications on the vaccine package, but must be included in a list of side effects called a Vaccine Table, kept by the Vaccine Court. In exchange, pharmaceutical companies cannot be held liable in civil court for adverse effects, and there is a cap on how much claimants may be awarded. (The fees come from taxes on immunizations.) 

Here is the excerpt from the official final Senate analysis of this bill which also contains a history of related legislation, written by a member of the Democrat caucus legislative analysis committee:

DIGEST: This bill authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease. 

ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that a minor who is 12 years of age or older who might have come into contact with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of that disease if the disease or condition is one that is required by law to be reported to the local health officer, or is a sexually transmitted disease as determined by the Director of the Department of Health Services. (Family Code Section 6926 (a)) 

Existing law provides that the parents of a minor who has consented to medical treatment for a communicable or sexually transmitted disease are not liable for payment for that care. (Family Code Section 6926 (b)) 

Existing law provides that a minor may consent to medical care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy. (Family Code Section 6925 (a)) 

Existing law provides that a minor’s consent under minor consent statutes cannot be subject to disaffirmance because of minority. (Family Code Section 6921) 

Existing law provides that a minor who is 12 years old or older who is alleged to have been raped may consent to diagnosis and treatment of that condition. (Family Code Section 6927) 

Existing law allows a minor alleged to have been sexually assaulted to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis and treatment of that condition. (Family Code Section 6928 (b)) 

Existing law allows a minor to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of a drug or alcohol-related problem. (Family Code Section 6929 (b)) 

Existing law provides that a minor may consent to medical or dental care if that minor is over the age of 15, living separate and apart from his or her parents whether with or without his/her parents’ consent, and managing his or her own financial affairs. (Family Code Section 6922 (c)) 

This bill authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.  

This fight isn’t over. Stay tuned for news following a Monday meeting of interested organizations.

For complete information on the damages to our youth already occurring from this drug, please visit the following websites: www.NVIC.org (National Vaccines Information Center), http://sanevax.org, and www.truthaboutgardasil.org

I admit to having a difficult time thinking about all the California children who will, in the near future, begin to suffer from the badly mistaken “good” intentions of the legislators who think they know—better than parents—what is good for a child. I know that I, for one, will never be able to accept any Merck drug product or over-the-counter product which can be determined by going to their website.

Camille Giglio began volunteering in the Right to Life movement within a year after the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down. She was living in Maryland at the time of the decision and moved to California in 1974. In 1980, along with several other former National Right to Life California members, they formed California Right to Life, which is still active to this day. Camille directs the activities of the California Right to Life Committee section on public policy issues regarding life and family rights. She has been tracking the California legislature since the late 1980s.

Comments

* = Required Fields
    • Your Name*
    • Your Email Address*
    • Comment*
    • Enter the code*
zachary | 2012-03-14 13:14:59
This drug has killed so many young people allready and now they are dropping the age of consent really!?!
Kathy Ritscher | 2011-09-20 15:33:59
Informed parents are being pushed away from parenting. My daughter and I made a well informed decision not to take this drug. It has not been proven safe enough to be used for every child for a very small STD protection. It only protects 4 out of over 40 STD cancers! It has too high of a percent of harmful side effects AND the bill assumes that ALL girls need it due to sexual activity! My daughter, 18 now, is very forward with me, and was given the choice to talk to the doctor on her own if she wanted to, but told me that there was NO need to take the drug as she wasn't involved in any activity to warrant it or the dangers of it! I am also appalled that the State will null and void the opt out signatures of parents. (I know, I know! there are cases out there that warrant the reasoning behind this. But come on! the percent that really need this or the ability to do it without the parents is so small compared with the percent the State is asking, no telling, us what to do!) Thank you Will for the info!