(NaturalNews) A California state senator and pediatrician who is lending his support for a new bill that would take away a parent's right to refuse to have their children vaccinated for any reason is backed, in part, by Big Pharma.Sen. Richard Pan, a Democrat, helped steer the legislation he co-authored through the Senate's health committee on a vote of 6-2. The measure, if passed, would remove all parental objections to vaccinations for their school-aged children."I've personally witnessed the suffering caused by vaccine-preventable diseases, and all children deserve to be safe at school," Pan said, as reported by Reuters."The personal belief exemption is now putting other school children and people in our community in danger."But is Pan's "concern" his own? Or are other (monetary) interests at stake? Who can be sure, given his ties to Big Pharma? As reported earlier byPan was a member of the state Assembly during the 2010 cycle; as documented by, he reportedly received $1,000 in campaign contributions from Merck.According to ElectionTrack.com, which tracks campaign contributions , Pan has also received money from Genentech, a company that develops drugs "to address significant unmet medical needs" ($1,500); Tenet Healthcare, a Dallas-based corporation providing "leading healthcare services" around the country such as vaccinations ($4,100); Gilead Sciences, a "research-based biopharmaceutical company" ($1,500); mega-health care corporation Johnson & Johnson ($4,100); BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, which "develops and commercializes innovative biopharmaceuticals for serious diseases and medical conditions" ($1,000); Eli Lilly, a global Big Pharma corporation which developed a number of vaccines including the SARS vaccine and which won protection from autism lawsuits shortly after the turn of the century ($4,100); biopharmaceutical firm AmGen ($1,000); McKesson Corporation, a pharmaceutical distributor ($1,000); drugstore chain Rite Aid ($1,000); and others.As to who will be forced to pay for the added vaccinations, if parents are unable, it appears that, according to, the burden will be shifted to California taxpayers."The bill says parents are not financially viable, so taxpayers will have to pay for it," Paulo Sibaja, director of legislation at the Capitol Resource Institute, told the health news site. "We're still trying to calculate the cost. But the cost will be 50 percent from the state, 50 percent from the federal government."He added that the legislation raises additional issues, such as "who will be legally liable for medical liability, the state or the parents.""The bill undermines the parents, who are totally out of the decision affecting their child," he said.As for Pan's anti-parental rights legislation, the bill is being proposed after 150 people in several states were diagnosed with measles in recent months; 126 were from California (the "outbreak" began at Disneyland, according to reports).It has been called an "emergency," an "epidemic," a "crisis" -- but all told, the number of people affected was infinitesimal given the population of California alone (nearly 39 million).Reuters noted that the measure has a long way to go before it becomes law:Clearly, there are a number of California parents who are not ready to let their state government make this decision for them.