Governor's Directive May Undermine State Vaccine Exemption Policies
Oct 18, 2013

AP2109governor_jerry_brownLast year, an immunization bill to help protect the children, schools and communities in California from vaccine preventable diseases was introduced to the State Assembly.  This proposed bill (AB 2109) was intended to reduce the number of students claiming non-medical vaccination exemptions and minimize the impact of disease outbreaks caused in part by pockets of under-vaccinated children. After many hearings the bill, which was co-sponsored by the California Immunization Coalition, the California Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics – CA and the Health Officers Association of California, was approved by the State Assembly and signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown in September, 2012.
However, upon signing the bill the Governor added a specific directive that may impact the way in which the new exemption forms are written and seriously undermine the bill’s original intent. Bill supporters are now left to question whether the Governor’s actions were appropriate.  Were his changes an attempt to re-interpret the law?  And does he have the authority to make such changes?
As approved, AB 2109 would not interfere with parental options to secure personal belief exemptions from required school vaccinations.  Rather, the bill would simply establish new policies regarding the process by which parents would need to file for an exemption.  Instead of allowing parents to just sign a form and it be accepted, the new bill would help ensure parents were making educated immunization decisions.  Starting in January 2014, parents will now be required to meet with a healthcare provider or school nurse to discuss the risks and benefit of immunizations prior to the exemption being submitted.  The parental decision to claim an exemption will not be restricted, however the bill moves to ensure parents are getting credible information to address their vaccine related questions and concerns.  This additional step in the exemption process is also intended to deter parents from filing for exemptions out of convenience.
Various studies suggest that the ease by which parents can obtain vaccine exemptions has a direct correlation on the number of exemptions filled in a particular state and the rising incidence of disease.   In the case of California, a recent Pediatrics article suggests that the increasing rate of nonmedical exemptions has been one of the key factors in the rise of pertussis outbreaks in the state.   Jessica Atwell, lead author of the study highlighted in Pediatrics explains how exemptions have played a role in disease outbreaks by stating,

“The exemptions clustered spatially and were associated with clusters of cases.”

(For news coverage related to this study, readers can refer to USA Today, NPR, Huffington Post, CBS News, and TIME)

AB2109These considerations were a large part of the input that legislators received from doctors, public health professionals and parents prior to passing AB 2109.  While the legislators approved the bill as written, Governor Brown chose to add a directive in his signing statement stating that he would “direct the department (California Department of Public Health) to allow for a separate religious exemption on the form.”  
If the Governor’s intent was to accommodate parents seeking religious exemptions, this could easily be accomplished by grouping both religious and personal belief exemptions as nonmedical exemptions, as is seen in other states.  This would maintain the requirement that a parent or guardian discuss their concerns with a medical professional before the form could be processed.   However, it’s possible that a separate religious exemption category will be added to the new form in California that does not require parents to have a discussion with a healthcare provider or provide any other supporting documentation.  This small, but significant change will seriously diminish the impact of the bill.
By providing a way for parents to circumvent the discussion with a health provider, parents could choose to declare a religious exemption as easily as they had once declared a personal belief exemption. For parents looking for the quickest and easiest way to complete the form, there is little doubt that the new religious exemption option may take the place of the personal belief exemptions.   In essence, the governor’s directive will have nullified the new law that he himself had signed and the state legislature had passed.
California has not been the first state to attempt to control exemption rates through legislation.  Washington State passed a similar bill in 2011 which has been credited with decreasing their Kindergarten exemption rates from 6% in 2010-2011, to 4.5% for the 2011-2012 school year.  While California may hope to see a similar decrease in exemptions, the impact of AB 2109 will largely be determined by the way in which the new exemption forms are written.

Catherine Flores Martin, Director of CIC

Catherine Flores Martin, Director of CIC

Catherine Flores Martin, Director of the California Immunization Coalition (CIC), expressed concern in a recent interview, explaining that many reputable organizations have worked very hard to highlight the importance of this bill.
She explains,

“This bill did a great service to parents by ensuring that they will get adequate time to talk to busy physicians and health care providers about their immunization questions and concerns.”

In responding to questions about the way in which religious exemptions may be addressed, Ms. Martin adds,

“We do not believe that any religion is against parents having a conversation with their child’s medical provider and getting information that can assist them with making an informed decision about the health of their child.”

While the public is left questioning how the Governor’s directive will be executed, there is no doubt that this bill will be a disappointment if it fails to accomplish what it was intended to do – reduce student exemptions and minimize outbreaks of vaccine preventable disease among California’s students, schools and communities.

If you would like to stay informed about AB 2109, be sure to connect with the California Immunization Coalition by visiting the director’s page of their website and “liking” them on Facebook.  It’s important to note that many states across the country are considering similar legislation designed to alter current school vaccine exemption processes.  By adding your name to the Vaccinate Your Baby “Get Involved” list, you can request to receive immunization alerts that pertain to your particular state.   Staying informed is just another way you can help to ensure the health of your community.

Related Posts

This guest post was written by Alethea Mshar out of concern for her son Ben.  A version of this post originally appeared on her blog Ben’s Writing, Running Mom. Like all parents, my child’s health...

Every Child By Two asks you to join in urging Congress to protect crucial funding for immunization programs.  Politics aside, if and when the Affordable Care Act is repealed, nearly $600 million in funds...

17 responses to “Governor's Directive May Undermine State Vaccine Exemption Policies”

  1. lisa king says:

    Gov. Brown has basically rendered the new law pointless. It is as if it was never passed. What is the definition of a health care provider in California, I wonder. Doesn’t matter, there are plenty of quack pediatricians like Jay Gordon who will give them a slanted anti-vax view with which to make their decision.

  2. Christine Vara says:

    Lisa, it is my understanding that the health providers and school nurses are not being asked to “approve” the exemption, but that their signature is simply a way to document that there was an exchange of information. In that regard, the extreme anti-vax parent will probably not be persuaded to vaccinate their children, but the focus here is on the fence-sitters and the parents who use the exemption out of convenience. Let’s just hope that those parents speak with someone who can provide credible information.

  3. Christine Vara says:

    @reissd Thanks for providing your legal viewpoint. It does appear to present a legal dilemma – the bill has been changed by the Governor after it was approved as written.

  4. Juila Angel says:

    Lisa, thank you for following up on this situation. This is a real important issue right now and the Governor’s directive cannot be ignored. I am a former CA credentialed school nurse and I am happy to see that he is keeping the parents in control of their child’s health and well-being.

    • reissd says:

      Why do you think the governor’s directive cannot – and should not – be ignored when it’s in violation of the statute?

      • Juila Angel says:

        I feel that his directive is in the best interests of our families here in California, to have a choice and maintain control of their child’s health and well being. Regardless of the statute. I go on my feelings. I believe the Governor does too. A Governor’s directive is very powerful and cannot be dismissed.

        • reissd says:

          We have a legislative process in California. It’s long, deliberative, and includes a lot of checks and balances. That’s how you change the law. The government cannot change the law on his own, and if he does, would probably lose in court. That’s the difference between a governor in a democracy and a dictator: he cannot and does not get to do what he feels like.

          • Juila Angel says:

            You are looking for someone to argue with. I am not that person. It is sad that you cannot accept the fact that the Governor can make these directives and they are perfectly legal. This is a democracy and this is part of our democracy. And any man who makes decisions about important issues by trusting his feelings is a real man.

          • reissd says:

            Please read my analysis above of the legality.

  5. reissd says:

    Also allow me to point out that the law just requires families to get a health care provider to sign that they received information on the risks and benefits of vaccines and the risks of vaccine preventable diseases. What is your opposition to that requirement? Don’t you think parents should get that information? How can families properly maintain control of their well being if they don’t have that information?

  6. Glenna says:

    I am soooo disappointed.

  7. Lawrence says:

    @Julia – you don’t seem to have any idea how Democracy works, do you?

  8. Vera says:

    Freedom of religion is in the Bill of Rights, a right that may not be violated regardless of majority opinion or illegal laws. The vaccine religion is one viewpoint, and fear of this religion is another viewpoint shared by an increasing number. Every single parent who refuses vaccines does so for a well-considered reason, and it is condescending to act as though the vaccine pushers’ information is somehow privileged and superior.

    • reissd says:

      I’d also add that while the constitution does protect freedom of religion, that does not mean you can get absolved from a general statute in the name of your religion. Religion is not an excuse to break the law. And in the context of vaccines specifically, the Supreme Court said religion does not absolve one from vaccinating children – Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). Of course, as Lawrence pointed out, the statute does not require people to get vaccinated – just to get information.

  9. Lawrence says:

    @Vera (Ms. Parker) – and where does it say in the law that vaccines are compulsory? Why are you so afraid of people being educated about vaccines using facts?

  10. Lawrence says:

    @Vera – also, please name a major religion that supports the “anti-vaccine” position….if you can.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.