California’s school immunizations bill passes another committee

The California Senate voted Thursday, May, 14, 2015, to ... Opponents of SB277 protest before the Senate Judiciary Committee's decision on the bill at the California State Capitol, Tuesday, April 28, 2015, in Sacramento, Calif. SB277 would eliminate the personal-belief exemption, the option California parents use to skip their childÕs school immunizations, but still allow children to be exempt for medical reasons. less The California Senate voted Thursday, May, 14, 2015, to ... Opponents of SB277 protest before the Senate Judiciary Committee's decision on the bill at the California State Capitol, Tuesday, April 28, 2015, in ... more Photo: Santiago Mejia / Santiago Mejia / The Chronicle Buy photo Photo: Santiago Mejia / Santiago Mejia / The Chronicle Image 1 of / 27 Caption Close California’s school immunizations bill passes another committee 1 / 27 Back to Gallery

SACRAMENTO — The bill that would mandate vaccinations for California schoolchildren passed another committee on Tuesday even as hundreds of parents descended on the Capitol to call the proposal an attack on their parental rights.

SB277 would eliminate the option California parents currently use to skip all or some of the required school immunizations for their children by signing a personal-belief exemption, a broad waiver that includes religious objections to vaccinations. The bill allows parents in California to continue obtaining doctor-approved medical exemptions for children who cannot be safely vaccinated. The bill applies to students in both public and private schools.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which is charged with ensuring bills are legally sound, approved the bill 5-1 after deciding that the legislation met legal and constitutional concerns. The bill heads next to the Senate Appropriations Committee, its fourth committee, to evaluate costs associated with it. A date for that hearing has not yet been set. The full Senate would vote on the bill if it is approved by Appropriations.

SB277 was expected to pass given a majority of the committee was already on record as supporting the bill.

Committee Chair Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, said the state has a compelling interest in ensuring the state’s immunization rates are high enough to protect the public.

“This is really about protecting children who are in school,” said Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, who co-authored the bill with Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica.

Bill gets amended

Pan, a pediatrician, and Allen amended the bill Tuesday to include a provision that would allow children who are currently attending schools with a personal belief exemption to continue to attend school until their next scheduled vaccine check — which generally happens if a student enters a new school or enters seventh grade.

A second amendment would allow parents to use personal belief exemptions for any new vaccine added to the list of currently required immunizations, which include measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, chicken pox and diphtheria.

“In the past, California was very generous in allowing parents’ exemptions from these requirements — we could get away with that as long as the risk was low,” said Dorit Reiss, a law professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, who testified in favor of the bill. “Now, when we are seeing more outbreaks and non-vaccination is bringing back diseases, it’s appropriate to reconsider that balance and act to protect children in schools and day care and other vulnerable people in the community.”

Public health officials say at least 90 percent of the population needs to be immunized to prevent the spread of diseases and to protect people who can’t be vaccinated due to age or illness. The statewide vaccination rate for kindergartners entering school this year was 90.4 percent. Parents filed 13,592 personal belief exemptions this year for kindergartners, which makes up 2.5 percent of all kindergartners in the state.

Opponents said the bill would force parents to choose between vaccinating their children, even if it violates their beliefs, or homeschooling, which may not meet their child’s educational needs.

Legal researcher Mary Holland, who testified on behalf of opponents, said she didn’t feel the state had proven there was a compelling need for the legislation.

Testimony challenged

Holland said the bill would eliminate informed consent required for medical procedures, at one point saying forced immunizations could be likened to rape. That drew a strong reaction from Jackson, the Judiciary chair, who stopped Holland several times to challenge her legal basis or for remarks she found inflammatory.

“If SB277 goes forward it will undoubtedly be challenged in court, and I think it will wreak havoc,” Holland said before the hearing. “I think there will be multiple lawsuits across the state, and I think it’s likely that there would a temporary restraining order on enactment of the law pending a full hearing in court on whether or not this law meets a compelling state interest.”

Bill called 'ridiculous’

Prominent mixed martial arts fighter Urijah Faber attended the hearing to speak in opposition, saying he found it “ridiculous” that lawmakers would push immunizations on parents.

“This shouldn’t be up to a government,” said Faber, who is unvaccinated. “There is no disputing there are adverse affects from vaccinations. It should be a choice.”

Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail mgutierrez@sfchronicle.com