Paul Sisson reports at
The San Diego Union-Tribune that a federal judge denied an an injunction request against California's new vaccine law.
The ruling, made by U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego, means that all kindergarteners and seventh graders in public and private schools across the state must prove they are fully inoculated against 10 different diseases, from diphtheria to tetanus, unless they have a medical exemption form signed by a licensed doctor.
On July 1 a coalition of parents and other organizations, including three from San Diego, sued the state, claiming that the law, SB 277, violated their constitutional rights to an equal public education and to their rights of free exercise of religion. There are also two other pending lawsuits against the law, both filed by parents in Los Angeles. The San Diego case is the first to have an injunction hearing and decision.
Sisson reports that opponents of the law have a variety of motives.
Some are outright opposed to all vaccinations out of concerns that they cause conditions such as autism despite many peer-reviewed papers that show otherwise. Others say they are simply opposed to the pace and breadth of the government’s vaccination schedule and would prefer that their children get their shots at less frequent intervals. Others object to certain vaccinations, such as those that prevent hepatitis and chicken pox, because they prevent disease in older children or adults but not young children. And then there are those who say they fear adverse reactions because family members or relatives have had problems that cropped up after receiving a vaccine dose.
Skeptical Raptor offers a detailed analysis, concluding:
Judge Sabraw’s decision is well grounded in case law, provides resounding answers to the plaintiffs claim, and is legally very, very sound. It also protects children and the public health by allowing SB277 to go into force, making schools safer from outbreaks, while the law is debated in courts
