'Too broad to be constitutional'
Key Excerpts from Article on Website of USA Today
Posted: August 2nd, 2015
I swore an oath to uphold the U.S. and California constitutions. Sometimes, that means voting against "responsible" bills that nevertheless represent government overreach. California's broad new mandate, that a child cannot attend school unless vaccinated for 10 conditions and "any other disease deemed appropriate," was such an occasion. The legislation affects four fundamental rights: to parent one's children; to refuse medical treatment; to practice one's religion (for those whose creed genuinely eschews medicine); and to attend school (a unique right recognized in California). The government ... can only infringe these liberties if a law is narrowly tailored and logical, and if no less-restrictive means exist. Consider the following example. There are 1.2 million Americans with HIV and 178 this year with the measles. Just as vaccines slow or halt the spread of measles, prophylactics slow or halt HIV. But could the government mandate that everyone use condoms to stop the spread of HIV? Of course not. Such intimate decisions are not for government to make. As an article in the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics recently noted, court rulings allowing mandatory vaccinations are outdated, narrow and come from a line of precedent that also allowed the government to sterilize those it deemed genetically unfit. A law mandating vaccinating kindergarteners for an STD, shots for tetanus (not communicable) and "any other" vaccines that some bureaucrat chooses is too broad to be constitutional.
Note: The above was written by Mike Gatto, who represents Burbank in the California State Assembly and has practiced constitutional and appellate law. Read powerful evidence that some vaccines are not safe nor effective. Remember that big Pharma makes billions in profit from vaccines.