Thursday, October 13, 2011

California and a Tale of Two Bills!

Originally posted on my facebook blog 10/10/11.

The new law in California that allows minor's to consent to vaccination without parents' knowledge reads as follows:

'SECTION 1. Section 6926 of the Family Code is amended to read: 6926. (a) A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease or condition is one that is required by law or regulation adopted pursuant to law to be reported to the local health officer, or is a related sexuallytransmitted disease, as may be determined by the State Public Health Officer. (b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to
medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease (c) The minor’s parents or guardian are not liable for payment for medical care provided pursuant to this section'

The good news is that despite what has been reported about this and all the confusion that's insued including my own, this does not appear to be allowing children to seek pregnancy prevention or abortion nor does it seem to be allowing vaccination for every contagious disease. Nevertheless, this is a major blow to parents' rights and the safety of our children bypassing a mandate which has proven to be unpopular in the past and using the powers of coersion in it's place.

Now let's talk a tale of two bills. Two bills placed on the Governor's desk on the same day. One is AB499 which pertains to a minor's right to consent to the treatment and prevention of STDs including one of the most diabolical vaccines to every hit the market, Gardasil. On the other hand you have SB946 put forth by major "non-profit", Autism Speaks among others, which will require private insurance companies to cover treatments for autism. What does one have to do with the other? I would argue, quite a lot. First of all you have the same people who are opposed to one bill supporting the other so when Governor Brown goes to sign both bills on the same day parents' will fill that it is a half victory rather than a complete failure. But wait.. is SB946 the savior for autism everyone is looking for? Read below and you decide.

'The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.'

Those who have children with autism, as I do are probably aware of the fact that State agencies such as schools and regional centers that provide treatment for autism seek reimbursement for specified reasons through the federally funded insurance program known as medical (in other States medicaid). SB 946 states this will be amended so that "no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason". The Regional Centers which provide home treatment for families are considered to be the "payee of last resort". In other words, they won't pick up the tab if the insurance companies are already doing so and if they aren't receiving reimbursement then certainly the motivation to do so goes down.

The bill does specify that this should not have an effect however on IEP or Individual Education Plans as provided.

"This section shall not affect or reduce any obligation to provide services under an individualized education program, as defined in Section 56032 of the Education Code, or an individualized service plan, as described in Section 5600.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400, et seq.) and its implementing regulations."

However if you've ever had to go through an IEP meeting with the school staff you know that money matters. The budgetary needs of the school are always considered despite what the staff may have you believe and once again when one of the funding sources has been cut off.. look out.

Then it goes on to discuss all the qualifications of the service provider but states that those on government assisted insurance are exempt and even in the case of private pay they maybe subjected to rejection of services, co-payments, etc.

"(d) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) A specialized health insurance policy that does not cover mental health or behavioral health services or an accident only, specified disease, hospital indemnity, or Medicare supplement policy. (2) A health insurance policy in the Medi-Cal program (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code). (3) A health insurance policy in the Healthy Families Program (Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code). (4) A health care benefit plan or policy entered into with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System pursuant to the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (Part 5 (commencing with Section 22750) of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code). (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the obligation to provide services under Section 10144.5. (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law As provided in Section 10144.5 and in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) , in the provision of benefits required by this section, a health insurer may utilize case management, network providers, utilization review techniques, prior authorization, copayments, or other cost sharing."

So far it looks like the State is finding a way to relinquish it's pay out for autism while pushing it back on the insurance companies, sort of..

It also goes on to talk about how this bill will only be in effect for 2 years unless it is extended. So what happens in the two years time? Do insurance rates go up? Better believe it, nothing in the law states anything to the contrary. Does State funded programming go down? While it says that shouldn't occur, it's always a negotiation when it comes to getting services provided through government funded sources for your child's autism so who's to say?

Okay, so now the really weird part.

"Existing law establishes various communicable disease prevention and control programs. Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish a list of reportable diseases and conditions and requires health care providers and laboratories to report cases of HIV infection to the local health officer using patient names and sets guidelines regarding these reports. Existing law requires the local health officers to report unduplicated HIV cases by name to the department. This bill would authorize the department to revise the HIV reporting form without the adoption of a regulation, as specified."

What's that? Why does a bill about autism insurance reform have a clause pertaining to HIV reporting in it? Hmm.. What is Big Pharma for 6 billion, Alex? Just as the State earns revenue for every autism diagnosis it generates in the system, so does it for HIV; therefore, by changing the law to make it more accesible for Health Officials to report cases of HIV you can increase the State's income should this result in a larger number of HIV positive cases being reported. Not only that but upon the next reporting cycle you can probably count on headlines reading "California HIV rates soar!!" And as this was slipped under the radar by hiding it in an autism bill, you can bet that no one will be aware of the fact that it was due merely to a change in law.

Go back to AB499 and you have a law in place that allows minors to consent to the treatment of HIV without parental approval and currently in the process of development is?? you guessed it, an HIV vaccine which 12 year olds will already by law be able to consent to without parents' knowledge. Of course this a speculative scenario on my part trying to piece together the events of the day. Given my complete distrust of government I had to review the bill SB946 before just assigning my support and while doing so it didn't sit well with me to support something that would encourage this push for increased HIV diagnosis. Especially given the fact that it's a totally bogus diagnosis in the first place and the treatment AZT is a death sentence. This may not increase the number of diagnosed but regulation on reporting is being changed for a reason and I believe that reason could be to increase revenue for the bankrupt State.

Keep in mind too that AB499 is an amendment to one in a series of family codes 6920-6929 that were put into effect last year allowing minors the right to consent to medical care without parental knowledge. This includes section 6924 that gives a child the ability consent to the out-patient treatment of a mental illness prescribed by a professional defined as a "government agency" among other things. "Out-patient treatment"? More drugs, of course.

So does Toni Atkins the assemblywoman from San Diego who wrote this bill after receiving a $1000 campaign donation from Merck the manufactuer of Gardasil thinking that this treatment will be for her children?

"The people who tend to question it are probably the media, etc. because it’s a newsworthy topic for you," Atkins said. "The issue is that you are dealing with people under the age of 18. The recommendation is for parents to be aware of this for their young girls and young boys and I think, probably, the group of young people that are going to be seeking care are already seeking care for things like diagnosis and treatment."

I would say from this statement, she doesn't. I would say that once again if you disagree then you must be a bad parent because if you're a good parent what do you have to worry about? You're kid won't be having sex behind your back, right? This is for children who have baaaaddd parents and therefore need to be protected by your friend the Government. I would say she also doesn't even believe opposition exists, she seems to think it's just "the media". Oh really?

Given that fact that within the past year California has passed and put into effect new laws that will increase drug treatment and vaccination for minors it's point blank obvious that it is a big pharma stooge. Never in my life have I found an instant where the old adage "follow the money" was incorrect. On a more sinister note it appears that a heavier hand is at work. I don't believe the Governor and his minions are in on it but on a higher scale you have to wonder if this is part of the implication of Codex Alimentarius, Agenda 21. The agenda for 21st. century that is to break up the family and depopulate through food and drugs. Does that not appear to be what's happening?

I dunno.. I'm no expert and I've certainly been wrong before so I would willingly welcome any correction of my statements. I will go to bed tonight with an added prayer for it.

Listen to my interview on the 10/10/11 Robert Scott Bell regarding this topic:

-AB 499:


-SB 946 Bill analysis:

-Gov. signs bill letting minors seek HPV vaccinations without parental consent:

-2010 California Code Family Code Chapter 3. Consent By Minor:


-U.S. Doctor Cautious About HIV Vaccine:

-California Health Officials HIV reporting system:

-California Health Officials to Track New HIV Cases:

Merck Bankrolled Anti-Parent Bill:

HIV Test Warning Label:

MOS with Liam Scheff - HIV Testing 1.m4v:

Law gives minors right to get HPV shots:

No comments:

Post a Comment