Oppose SB 277. It is too late to oppose this Bill, as you can see. However, we must beware of the Bill SB 18, which Pan has just around the corner.
Let’s look at the text of the bill, line by line. (If you want to read the full text all at once, it can be found HERE).
Existing law provides for the care and welfare of children and youth in various contexts, including, but not limited to, child welfare services, foster care, health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, and education.
This is the bill’s very first sentence. If existing law already provides for child welfare in so many ways, then we do we need an additional law to cover the same things? The only reason we would need such a law is if they were planning to expand or re-define the parameters — or shift the focus of control.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 80 (Res. Ch. 101, Stats. 2009) declares the Legislature’s support of a Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California that resolves to invest in all children and youth in order to achieve specified goals to create an optimal environment for their healthy development.
Vague — what is an “optimal environment” and what is “healthy development?”
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to expand and codify the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California to establish a comprehensive framework that governs the rights of all children and youth in California, outlines the research-based essential needs of California’s children, and establishes standards relating to the health, safety, well-being, early childhood and educational opportunities, and familial supports necessary for all children to succeed. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature, by January 1, 2022, to enact legislation for the purpose of ensuring that the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California, in its totality, is applied evenly, equitably, and appropriately to all children and youth across the state.(1) The right to parents, guardians, or caregivers who act in their best interest.What is their “best interest,” and who gets to decide? What if the state’s definition of “best interest” is not the same as the parents’ definition? Do they get different caregivers, until or unless the parents comply with the state’s standards?(2) The right to form healthy attachments with adults responsible for their care and well-being.Sounds great — are they going to leave families alone, then, outside of actual egregious abuse or neglect?(3) The right to live in a safe and healthy environment.Sounds great — but what do they consider a “healthy environment?”(4) The right to social and emotional well-being.How do they define this? How can they ensure this? The best chance at social and emotional well-being is to keep families intact and keep the state away, until clear abuse/neglect is occurring.
(5) The right to opportunities to attain optimal cognitive, physical, and social development.Cognitive development apparently refers to education, so we can assume all of this point does. Most likely, the state defines “optimal cognitive, physical, and social development” as occurring within the public school system. Pan has not been shy about his opposition to homeschooling, and this point may be used to remove or severely restrict the right to homeschool.(6) The right to appropriate, quality education and life skills leading to self-sufficiency in adulthood.Appropriate, quality education? Most likely, again, within the public school system — leading to loss of homeschooling freedom.(7) The right to appropriate, quality health care.Who gets to decide what is “appropriate, quality health care?” Based on Pan’s beliefs and actions thus far, we can only assume that he believes that whatever the allopathic/mainstream system is doing, is what is appropriate and quality. Refusing vaccines, choosing herbal remedies, etc. would not be allowed and parents could potentially be prosecuted if they choose care outside of the mainstream system, based on this point alone.You can read more at the above website. Below is an opinion from the website snopes.com:
An “alternative health” website published a story on 9 December 2016, accusing a California lawmaker of facilitating government seizure of children through a new state Senate bill. The piece claims that state Sen. Richard Pan (D) placed families in danger when he introduced state Senate Bill 18 on 5 December 2016:
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to expand and codify the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California to establish a comprehensive framework that governs the rights of all children and youth in California, outlines the research-based essential needs of California’s children, and establishes standards relating to the health, safety, well-being, early childhood and educational opportunities, and familial supports necessary for all children to succeed. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature, by January 1, 2022, to enact legislation for the purpose of ensuring that the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California, in its totality, is applied evenly, equitably, and appropriately to all children and youth across the state.
While the story ran the proposal verbatim, it did not identify any specific language in the bill authorizing officials to remove children from their households. Instead it claimed — without sources — that “many across the state” are already ripping the bill. (It also heavily suggested that Pan was a “whipping boy” for the pharmaceutical industry.)
The lawmaker, a pediatrician and faculty member at the University of California-Davis, has been targeted by opponents of mandatory school vaccination programs since co-authoring a different measure, Senate Bill 277, in February 2015.
As his spokesperson, Shannan Martinez, said in a statement:
This is a personal vendetta they have against Dr. Pan.
They don’t want to understand the bill and instead choose to make up lies about the legislation and the Senator.
The irony is that they oppose an effort to empower parents and ensure children and families get the support they need to succeed.
The vaccination bill, which was filed in response to a measles outbreak at Disneyland in 2014, eliminated “personal belief” exemptions for public and private school students across the state. It was enacted on 30 June 2015, meaning that students would be required to be vaccinated unless they were granted a medical exemption.
Pan reported getting threats via email and by phone after the bill was signed, enough so that he required additional security. A recall petition against him needing 35,926 signatures later failed after not getting a single signature.
Last updated: 15 December 2016
Originally published: 12 December 2016
Needless to say I do not agree with the opinion of Snopes.com, and I am only listing it as a courtesy to you the reader. The following video is another resource you might use in understanding the work of Senator/Doctor Pan. I am stating my opinion is her is a puppet of the New World Order, and this may sound like a conspiracy, but all you have to do is to research SB 277…judge for yourself. This is an alert to offer parents a right to choose and be informed of what is coming from the Government involving your rights as parents and the rights of your children.