CA SB277 | 2021-2022 | Regular Session
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)
Status: Engrossed on May 28 2021 - 50% progression
Action: 2021-06-03 - Referred to Com. on G.O.
Pending: Assembly Governmental Organization Committee
Text: Latest bill text (Amended) [HTML]
An act to amend Sections 12505, 12513, 12555, 12561, 12562, 12563, 12564, 12565, 12566, 12570, 12581, 12585, 12586, 12587, 12590, 12604, 12605, 12637, 12643, 12645, 12648, 12649, 12723, and 12726 of, to add Section 12635.5 to, and to repeal Section 12509 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to fireworks, and making an appropriation therefor.
Fireworks: dangerous fireworks: seizure: management.
2021-05-28 - Senate - Senate 3rd Reading SB277 Archuleta et al (Y: 38 N: 0 NV: 2 Abs: 0) [PASS]
2021-05-20 - Senate - Do pass as amended (Y: 7 N: 0 NV: 0 Abs: 0) [PASS]
2021-05-03 - Senate - Placed on suspense file (Y: 6 N: 0 NV: 1 Abs: 0) [PASS]
2021-04-20 - Senate - Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] (Y: 14 N: 0 NV: 1 Abs: 0) [PASS]
|2021-06-03||Assembly||Referred to Com. on G.O.|
|2021-05-28||Assembly||In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.|
|2021-05-28||Senate||Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1280.) Ordered to the Assembly.|
|2021-05-24||Senate||Read second time. Ordered to third reading.|
|2021-05-20||Senate||Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.|
|2021-05-20||Senate||From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1186.) (May 20).|
|2021-05-14||Senate||Set for hearing May 20.|
|2021-05-04||Senate||May 3 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.|
|2021-04-27||Senate||Set for hearing May 3.|
|2021-04-21||Senate||Re-referred to Com. on APPR.|
|2021-04-21||Senate||Withdrawn from committee.|
|2021-04-20||Senate||From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 14. Noes 0. Page 856.) (April 20). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.|
|2021-04-07||Senate||Set for hearing April 20.|
|2021-03-25||Senate||From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on G.O.|
|2021-02-22||Senate||Joint Rule 55 suspended. (Ayes 32. Noes 4. Page 272.)|
|2021-02-22||Senate||(Ayes 32. Noes 4.)|
|2021-02-22||Senate||Art. IV. Sec. 8(a) of the Constitution dispensed with.|
|2021-02-10||Senate||Referred to Coms. on G.O. and JUD.|
|2021-02-01||Senate||Read first time.|
|2021-02-01||Senate||From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 3.|
|2021-01-29||Senate||Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.|
California State Sources
120335.(a) As used in this chapter, “governing authority” means the governing board of each school district or the authority of each other private or public institution responsible for the operation and control of the institution or the principal or administrator of each school or institution.
(b) The governing authority shall not unconditionally admit any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless, prior to his or her first admission to that institution, he or she has been fully immunized. The following are the diseases for which immunizations shall be documented:
(2) Haemophilus influenzae type b.
(5) Pertussis (whooping cough).
(9) Hepatitis B.
(10) Varicella (chickenpox).
(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), full immunization against hepatitis B shall not be a condition by which the governing authority shall admit or advance any pupil to the 7th grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school.
(d) The governing authority shall not unconditionally admit or advance any pupil to the 7th grade level of any private or public elementary or secondary school unless the pupil has been fully immunized against pertussis, including all pertussis boosters appropriate for the pupil’s age.
(e) The department may specify the immunizing agents that may be utilized and the manner in which immunizations are administered.
(f) This section does not apply to a pupil in a home-based private school or a pupil who is enrolled in an independent study program pursuant to Article 5.5 (commencing with Section 51745) of Chapter 5 of Part 28 of the Education Code and does not receive classroom-based instruction.
(g) (1) A pupil who, prior to January 1, 2016, submitted a letter or affidavit on file at a private or public elementary or secondary school, child day care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center stating beliefs opposed to immunization shall be allowed enrollment to any private or public elementary or secondary school, child day care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center within the state until the pupil enrolls in the next grade span.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “grade span” means each of the following:
(A) Birth to preschool.
(B) Kindergarten and grades 1 to 6, inclusive, including transitional kindergarten.
(C) Grades 7 to 12, inclusive.
(3) Except as provided in this subdivision, on and after July 1, 2016, the governing authority shall not unconditionally admit to any of those institutions specified in this subdivision for the first time, or admit or advance any pupil to 7th grade level, unless the pupil has been immunized for his or her age as required by this section.
(h) This section does not prohibit a pupil who qualifies for an individualized education program, pursuant to federal law and Section 56026 of the Education Code, from accessing any special education and related services required by his or her individualized education program.
California Senate Bill 277
Removed personal belief as exemption from vaccination requirements for entry to schools
California Senate Bill 277 (SB277) is a California law that removed personal belief as a reason for an exemption from the vaccination requirements for entry to private or public elementary or secondary schools in California, as well as day care centers. The final version of the bill was enacted by the California Legislature in 2015 (passing the State Assembly on a 46–31 vote and the California State Senate on a 24–14 vote) and was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on June 30, 2015.
Passage of bill
The bill, co-authored by California state Senators Richard Pan and Ben Allen, was prompted by the 2014 Disneyland measles outbreak and low levels of vaccination in pockets of California, with some schools having vaccination rates below 60%. SB277 was supported by the California Medical Association, as well as by the American Academy of Pediatrics' California affiliate; the California State PTA; the California Immunization Coalition; and the California Children's Hospital Association.
Opposition to the bill, albeit from "a tiny minority", has been characterized as "possibly the most strident outpouring of political dissent in recent memory". Anti-vaccine activists started a petition to have Pan removed by recall election, but failed to obtain the necessary number of voter signatures. Efforts by the Freedom Angels Foundation to place a referendum on the ballot to repeal SB 277 also failed. Opponents of the legislation vilified Pan on social media, comparing to a Nazi; death threats were reported against both him and Ben Allen.
Upheld by courts
During and after the passage of SB 277, legal scholars such as Dorit Rubinstein Reiss of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law and Erwin Chemerinsky and Michele Goodwin of the University of California, Irvine School of Law said that removal of non-medical exceptions to compulsory vaccination laws were constitutional, noting such U.S Supreme Court cases as Zucht v. King (1922) and Prince v. Massachusetts (1944). After the passage of SB 277, groups of anti-vaccine parents challenged the law in court, arguing that it violated the right to an education, the right to religious freedom, and parental rights; these claims were rejected by the California state courts.
Impact and limitations
Following the law's enactment, vaccination rates among California schoolchildren increased, although unjustified medical exemptions also increased. The 20% increase in medical exemptions was fueled by anti-vaccination parents who sought and received such exemptions.
A 2019 study published in the journal Pediatrics, analyzing the effect of the law, determined that "the percentage of incoming kindergarteners up-to-date on vaccinations in California increased after the implementation of SB277," but there was a replacement effect: medical exemptions for independent study/homeschooled students largely offset "the decrease in the personal belief exemption rate from 2.37% to 0.56%." The study's correlational analysis also found "that previous geographic patterns of vaccine refusal persisted after the law's implementation."
In a separate 2019 study published in Pediatrics, Californian public health officials interviewed after SB 277's enactment said that, following the bill's passage, they faced an increasing amount of unusual reasons cited as justifications for medical exemptions, as well as the unethical practices by some physicians who charged parents a high fee in exchange for obtaining an unjustified medical exemption. SB 277 did not allow public health officials to oppose unjustified medical exemptions provided by physicians, and public health officials supported a change in the law to allow them to address abuses of the medical exemption process and thus decrease the possibility of infectious disease outbreaks.
A separate study, published in 2019 in PLOS Medicine used a synthetic control method to "implementation of the California policy that eliminated nonmedical childhood vaccine exemptions was associated with an estimated increase in vaccination coverage and a reduction in nonmedical exemptions at state and county levels," suggesting that the removal of non-medical vaccination exemptions "can be effective at increasing vaccination coverage." The study determined that the "observed increase in medical exemptions was offset by the larger reduction in nonmedical exemptions." The study found that the biggest gains in vaccine coverage were in the counties with the lowest vaccine coverage pre-SB 277.
- ^Rebecca Plevin, SB277 update: Calif. state Assembly approves controversial vaccination bill, KPCC (June 25, 2015).
- ^ abcSB-277 Public health: vaccinations (2015-2016), California Legislature.
- ^ abTracy Seipel & Jessica Calefati (June 20, 2015). "California vaccine bill SB 277 signed into law by Jerry Brown". Mercury News.
- ^ ab"California Vaccine Bill SB 277: Ban On Personal Exemptions Sparks Counter Movement Despite Recent Measles Outbreak". International Business Times. May 20, 2015. Retrieved July 6, 2015.
- ^"CMA joins vaccine advocates to launch "I Heart Immunity" campaign in support of Senate Bill 277". CMA website. California Medical Association. April 6, 2015. Retrieved July 12, 2015.
- ^ abJeremy B. White, Richard Pan recall effort falls short on vaccine issue, Sacramento Bee (January 4, 2016).
- ^Solomon, Samantha (10 December 2019). "Anti-vaccine activists forced to drop attempt to block new California law". ABC News. Archived from the original on 4 June 2020. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
- ^"California Capitol on alert over anti-vaccine threats". Sacramento Bee. April 14, 2015. Retrieved July 6, 2015.
- ^"Death threats made to office of state vaccine bill author". San Francisco Chronicle. April 17, 2015. Retrieved July 6, 2015.
- ^"Transcript". What The Folly?. April 29, 2015. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved July 31, 2015.
- ^Erwin Chemerinsky & Michele Goodwin, Essay: Compulsory Vaccination Laws are Constitutional, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 110, No. 3, pp. 589-616.
- ^Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, A Few Hail Mary Passes: Immunization Mandate Law, SB 277, Brought To Court, Health Affairs (February 28, 2018).
- ^ abDorit Reiss, California Court of Appeal Rejects Challenge to Vaccine Law, Bill of Health, Harvard Law School, July 30, 2018.
- ^"Study Examines Fallout of California Vaccine Exemption Law". American Academy of Family Physicians. Retrieved 2021-07-19.
- ^ abPan, Richard J.; Reiss, Dorit Rubinstein (2018-11-01). "Vaccine Medical Exemptions Are a Delegated Public Health Authority". Pediatrics. 142 (5): e20182009. doi:10.1542/peds.2018-2009. ISSN 0031-4005. PMID 30373912. S2CID 53114211.
- ^ abPaul L. Delamater, S. Cassandra Pingali, Alison M. Buttenheim, Daniel A. Salmon, Nicola P. Klein & Saad B. Omer, Elimination of Nonmedical Immunization Exemptions in California and School-Entry Vaccine Status, Pediatrics. Vol. 143, Issue 6, June 2019.
- ^ abMohanty, Salini; Buttenheim, Alison M.; Joyce, Caroline M.; Howa, Amanda C.; Salmon, Daniel; Omer, Saad B. (2018-11-01). "Experiences With Medical Exemptions After a Change in Vaccine Exemption Policy in California". Pediatrics. 142 (5): e20181051. doi:10.1542/peds.2018-1051. ISSN 0031-4005. PMC 6314187. PMID 30373910.
- ^ abcSindiso Nyathi, Hannah C. Karpel, Kristin L. Sainani, Yvonne Maldonado, Peter J. Hotez, Eran Bendavid, & Nathan C. Lo, The 2016 California policy to eliminate nonmedical vaccine exemptions and changes in vaccine coverage: An empirical policy analysis, PLOS Medicine (December 23, 2019), doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002994.
Bill SubjectsPublic Health: Vaccinations.
Existing law prohibits the governing authority of a school or other institution from unconditionally admitting any person as a pupil of any public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless prior to his or her admission to that institution he or she has been fully immunized against various diseases, including measles, mumps, and pertussis, subject to any specific age criteria. Existing law authorizes an exemption from those provisions for medical reasons or because of personal beliefs, if specified forms are submitted to the governing authority. Existing law requires the governing authority of a school or other institution to require documentary proof of each entrant's immunization status. Existing law authorizes the governing authority of a school or other institution to temporarily exclude a child from the school or institution if the authority has good cause to believe that the child has been exposed to one of those diseases, as specified. This bill would eliminate the exemption from existing specified immunization requirements based upon personal beliefs, but would allow exemption from future immunization requirements deemed appropriate by the State Department of Public Health for either medical reasons or personal beliefs. The bill would exempt pupils in a home-based private school and students enrolled in an independent study program and who do not receive classroom-based instruction, pursuant to specified law from the prohibition described above. The bill would allow pupils who, prior to January 1, 2016, have a letter or affidavit on file at a private or public elementary or secondary school, child day care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center stating beliefs opposed to immunization, to be enrolled in any private or public elementary or secondary school, child day care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center within the state until the pupil enrolls in the next grade span, as defined. Except as under the circumstances described above, on and after July 1, 2016, the bill would prohibit a governing authority from unconditionally admitting to any of those institutions for the first time or admitting or advancing any pupil to the 7th grade level, unless the pupil has been immunized as required by the bill. The bill would specify that its provisions do not prohibit a pupil who qualifies for an individualized education program, pursuant to specified laws, from accessing any special education and related services required by his or her individualized education program. The bill would narrow the authorization for temporary exclusion from a school or other institution to make it applicable only to a child who has been exposed to a specified disease and whose documentary proof of immunization status does not show proof of immunization against one of the diseases described above. The bill would make conforming changes to related provisions.
Bill Sponsors (29)
Jun 30, 2015
California State Legislature
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 35, Statutes of 2015.
California State Legislature
Approved by the Governor.
Jun 29, 2015
California State Legislature
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:15 p.m.
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 24. Noes 14. Page 1661.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
Jun 25, 2015
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 46. Noes 31. Page 2143.) Ordered to the Senate.
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
Jun 18, 2015
Ordered to third reading.
Read third time and amended.
Jun 15, 2015
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
Jun 11, 2015
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
Jun 10, 2015
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 6.) (June 9).
May 14, 2015
Amendments by Senator Moorlach tabled on motion of Senator Monning. (Ayes 25. Noes 11. Page 993.)
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 11. Page 993.) Ordered to the Assembly.
Amendments by Senator Anderson tabled on motion of Senator Monning. (Ayes 25. Noes 10. Page 993.)
Amendments by Senator Morrell tabled on motion of Senator Monning. (Ayes 25. Noes 11. Page 992.)
May 12, 2015
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
May 11, 2015
Ordered to second reading.
Withdrawn from committee.
May 07, 2015
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
May 05, 2015
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
May 04, 2015
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 818.) (April 28).
Apr 23, 2015
Set for hearing April 28.
Apr 22, 2015
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 721.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
Apr 17, 2015
Set for hearing April 22.
Apr 16, 2015
April 15 set for first hearing. Testimony taken. Further hearing to be set.
Apr 10, 2015
Set for hearing April 15.
Apr 09, 2015
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on ED. (Ayes 6. Noes 2. Page 544.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on ED.
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED.
Mar 10, 2015
Set for hearing April 8.
Feb 20, 2015
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 22.
Feb 19, 2015
(Corrected February 20).
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
|Bill Text Versions||Format|
|02/19/15 - Introduced|
|04/09/15 - Amended Senate|
|04/22/15 - Amended Senate|
|05/05/15 - Amended Senate|
|05/07/15 - Amended Senate|
|06/11/15 - Amended Assembly|
|06/18/15 - Amended Assembly|
|06/29/15 - Enrolled|
|06/30/15 - Chaptered|
|No related documents.|
Data on Open States is updated periodically throughout the day from the official website of the California State Legislature.
If you notice any inconsistencies with these official sources, feel free to file an issue.
- Baywatch parody xxx
- Tower 200 home gym
- Upmc neurosurgery doctors
- Fading away youtube
- Flower art pinterest
- Olx tractor
- Ford explorer 1999
- Converse chuck 70 flame
- 2k20 myteam cards
- Do gerbils need sand baths