California: On Thursday, Oct. 20, a small group of parents faced the State of California in a Los Angeles courtroom in an effort to overturn SB277. Their goal is to win back the right for their children to attend school without the mandated 64 vaccinations by the time a child enters kindergarten. Residents from the communities of Temecula and Murrieta traveled to Los Angeles to show their support for the plantiffs, 

The lawsuit Buck vs State of California points to the billions in damages that have been doled out to vaccine injured or deceased victims and their families as evidence that today’s vaccine schedule is unsafe.

Summer of 2015: Local residents fight back against SB277 http://bit.ly/2esZUx9

 The 2015 Disneyland measles outbreak occurred mainly in vaccinated individuals, showing that vaccines themselves are also not effective. Whistleblowers have come out to decry fraud in both safety and efficacy studies funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Democratic Senator Richard Pan received a large payment from a pharmaceutical company shortly before championing this bill, which some say amounts to a bribe. The lawsuit also highlights the unconstitutional infringement of religious freedom, as many vaccines contain the DNA of monkeys, cows, and aborted babies, which leaves vegans and Christians alike unwilling to partake.

The Orange County GOP last year released a statement eschewing SB277, citing that the law removes parental rights, individual freedom, informed consent to medical treatment free of coercion, religious and personal beliefs, and grants of unlimited government power.  Other nearby counties' GOP groups concurred, but the law was passed by the overwhelmingly democrat state senate. Votes were split along party lines.  The OC GOP’s resolution opposing SB 277 can be read here: https://ocpolitical.com/2015/06/16/oc-gop-opposes-sb-277-pan-schoolchildren-vaccination-bill/

Thursday's effort is being hailed as a modern David and Goliath match up, with a single lawyer with minimal crowdfunding as its only backing going up against the state of CA and powerful politicians and pharmaceutical companies.  Contributions to the plaintiffs’ legal costs can be made at
www.fundedjustice.com/en/projects/28675-REVOKE-REVOLT-RESTORE 

At the hearing, the plaintiffs’ attorney T. Matthew Phillips argued that in 2011, the Supreme Court’s Justice Anton Scalia ruled that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,” and thus, the state cannot force unsafe products onto children.   

While the state cited the case law of Jacobsen vs State of MA (1905,) which upheld the authority of the state to enforce mandatory vaccination, Phillips argued that at that time:

1. The smallpox epidemicthe disease was involved in this inoculation process, however today's vaccines are filled with dangerous adjuvants. He explained the vaccine "kangaroo court," where only about 1 out of 5 receive settlements and there is never any reason explained why some get settlements and some don't. Vaccine science is founded on unclear half-truths and no one can examine the drugs because manufacturers are shielded from liability. was actually wiping out a significant percentage of the population, so there was compelling reason to stop the spread of disease.
2. The form of “vaccination” at that time was only using the disease itself, and not the dangerous adjuvants of today like mercury, aluminum, human diploid cells from aborted babies, etc.
3. There was an opt out clause by way of fine.
4. The enforcement order was temporary, and lifted once the disease was no longer a threat.
5. The law mandated one vaccine dose for a deadly disease.
6. Was created and enforced when there is no epidemic of deadly disease.
7. Mandates vaccines of today, with toxic ingredients which do kill and maim some children.
8. Leaves no way to opt out.
9. Penalty of noncompliance is loss of the right to attend school, which is far more damaging than a fine.
10. Mandates not one dose of one vaccine for deadly disesase, but instead mandates 74 doses of 10 vaccines, most of which are not communicable diseases amongst school children.

Phillips argued that by contrast, SB 277

Phillips ended by presenting that forcing something onto everyone “for the common good” of others amounts to a medical experimentation, and there must be informed consent in a medical experiment.

Judge, Hon. Gregory Alarcon stated he would issue a ruling by the end of the day, however, no ruling had been issued by Friday morning.

Dawnielle Selden the author of this article is also a plantiff in the case.