Dear Saddleback Valley Unified School District, Superintendent and Board Members:
This letter is in response to the upcoming Board Members Meeting scheduled for October 14, 2021 and all future meetings where there may be a discussion as to mandating COVID-19 vaccines for all students 12 years and older and ages 5 and older upon FDA approval in order to be able to participate in in-person education and extracurricular activities within the Saddleback Valley Unified School District (SVUSD).
As a resident of Orange County, I sincerely object, on a legal, scientific, and moral basis, to such a proposed COVID-19 vaccine requirement, and ask SVUSD to reject this proposed resolution in the future immediately.
California Health & Safety Codes:
First and foremost, SVUSD does not have the legal authority under California law to mandate a new vaccine as a condition for in-person school attendance. Specifically, there is a list of ten childhood immunizations required in order for students to gain admittance to public or private schools in California at certain stages of their education, and this list does not include any COVID-19 vaccines.
See
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120335(a)(1)- (10). Under California Health & Safety Code § 120335(a)(11), only the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) can add a new vaccine to this childhood immunization schedule, and at this time, CDPH has not done so. California law does not allow individual public schools or school districts to unilaterally decide which additional vaccines its students must take prior to being allowed to enjoy an in-person public education, an education guaranteed by our California Constitution, Article IX.
Moreover, even if the CDPH elected to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine under Section 120335(a)(11) for all relevant California public schools, California law also requires that both medical and personal belief exemptions be allowed.
See
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120338. Accordingly, any unilateral COVID-19 mandate that SVUSD purports to impose on its students, and particularly without allowance for medical and personal belief exemptions, is illegal under California law and is also unconstitutional on its face.
Emergency Use Authorization and Liability:
Second, while neither CDPH nor our state legislature has mandated any COVID-19 vaccine for public or private school attendance, neither authority can do so while the vaccines are still under emergency use authorization. 21 U.S.C. § 360-bbb-3. This EUA statute explicitly states that anyone to whom an EUA product is administered must be informed of the option to refuse the product, as well as the risks and benefits of receiving it. Although the FDA has purportedly approved one of the mRNA vaccines, in reality, the approved vaccine, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, is not available or in widespread circulation in the United States. Instead, the only COVID-19 vaccines being offered to members of the public in California, including students 12 years of age or older, are still under emergency use authorization, including the Pfizer Biontech COVID-19 vaccine product. There is consequently no full approval of any COVID-19 vaccine that is available for students of any age in California. In addition, all COVID-19 vaccines, including the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, remain authorized only under emergency use for ages 12-15, and thus no public entity can mandate such an experimental vaccine for students in that age range. If neither CDPH nor our state legislature can currently mandate these vaccines due to federal EUA law and federal pre- emption issues, clearly SDUSD cannot unilaterally mandate an experimental use COVID-19 vaccine for its students either.
Finally, it should be noted that under the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, all COVID-19 vaccine makers are provided immunity from liability for their products. However, SVUSD and any schools attempting to mandate an experimental use vaccine or even an FDA approved vaccine that such school lacks authority to mandate under our Health & Safety code will certainly open themselves up for lawsuits if a student is injured by an unlawfully mandated COVID-19 vaccine.
It is unclear why Newsom believes that mandating a COVID-19 vaccine will do anything to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on school grounds. As clearly stated in all COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers’ materials, the vaccine clinical trial endpoints for all three vaccines were to reduce hospitalization and death by reducing the symptoms of the disease in the person taking the vaccine product. None of these vaccine products were analyzed for transmission or prevention of SARS-COv-2 infection. The delta variant is now the dominant variant in California. The CDC has made it clear in recent weeks that vaccinated persons can transmit the delta variant and might even possess higher viral loads than those who were not vaccinated, particularly those who have already naturally recovered from COVID-19. Since none of the vaccine products prevent infection or transmission, choosing to get a COVID-19 vaccine must remain an individual and personal health choice.
There is no clear benefit for imposing and mandating an experimental vaccine that does not prevent infection or transmission onto otherwise perfectly healthy children.
At this point, those who are vaccinated have presumably protected themselves against severe COVID or death.
Those who have made the choice not to get vaccinated are no different from those who are vaccinated, other than if they get the disease, they risk possibly getting sicker than those who are vaccinated who get COVID. As numerous studies indicate, and public health authorities acknowledge, children are at little risk of developing severe COVID-19.
Accordingly, requiring any COVID-19 vaccine, especially among student populations is not the answer, and it appears to be an unethical and unscientific way to use children as a shield to protect segments of the adult population – who already have the option to be vaccinated.
In conclusion, we ask SVUSD to reconsider any intention to try to mandate experimental COVID- 19 vaccines on our children.
Mandating these vaccines may result in prompt legal action against this school district for exceeding its lawful authority.
CALIFORNIA & US FEDERAL CONSTITUTION: NOTES
Cal. Const. Article 9, Section 5:
guarantees a system of free schools to children K-12. The right to a public education in California is a fundamental right fully guaranteed and protected by the California Constitution.
Privacy
–
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable right
including the right to
enjoying and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy
.
-
Right to family (or not) – abortion,
-
Right to marry – interracial, same sex,
-
Right to decline medical treatment or to die,
-
Right to dictate the health and education of your children,
Religion
– Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed
Equal Protection –
that a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Due Process
– “A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws.” The 14th Amendment protects a parent’s right to direct the educational upbringing of their child. Students have a “legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property right.”
Examples
:
-
Statute that prohibited the teaching of foreign language, and a state statute that required all students to attend public schools, as opposed to private schools, violated the 14th Amendment. See
Meyer v. Nebraska
and
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
.
-
Statute that required Amish children to attend school past the eighth grade violated the substantive due process rights, and the religious freedom rights, of Amish parents to direct the educational and religious upbringing of their children. See Wisconsin v. Yoder
Sincerely,
Name
