Sacrificing Our Kids: New Ca. Bill (SB-18) Allows State To Kidnap/Seize Children

By On December 22, 2016

The ongoing debate about vaccines has only become more and more heated over the past few months, with parents digging in against politicians and governments who appear eager to take away the right to personal choice and health freedom.

California has been on the front lines for months now since the passage of SB277, the controversial mandatory vaccine bill eliminating personal and religious exemptions, in June 2015.

Now, the state is again becoming a battleground for parents’ rights with the introduction of another controversial bill that critics say could give the state the power to seize children who aren’t the supposedly correct “research-based essential needs,” “special care” and more by their parents.

“Bombshell” CA Senator Pan Introduces Controversial New Bill 

Introduced by Richard Pan, the Golden State senator who helped pave the way for SB277, a new bill by the name of SB-18 could give even more sweeping powers to the government for determining what would normally be personal healthcare decisions for children.

While Pan and the bill’s supporters believe it could be a benefit to kids who otherwise would not receive what its text describes as “research-based essential needs” for “safety, well-being, early childhood and educational opportunities, and familial supports necessary for all children to succeed,” critics like Rappoport and others believe it sets a dangerous new precedent (see the full text of the bill here).

Calling the bill a “grab-bag of generalities basically giving over care of the children to the State,” Rappoport lays out why all parents, and supporters of health freedom, should be leery of the bill:

“The Legislature finds and declares that all children and youth, regardless of gender, class, race, ethnicity, national origin, culture, religion, immigration status, sexual orientation, or ability, have inherent rights that entitle them to protection, special care, and assistance, including, but not limited to, the following…” Rappoport writes, quoting the bill directly.

“The right to parents, guardians, or caregivers who act in their best interest,” the bill continues.

“The right to form healthy attachments with adults responsible for their care and well-being. The right to live in a safe and healthy environment. The right to social and emotional well-being. The right to opportunities to attain optimal cognitive, physical, and social development. The right to appropriate, quality education and life skills leading to self-sufficiency in adulthood. The right to appropriate, quality health care.”

But are these benefits something that happen naturally over the course of a healthy child’s life, or something that can be mandated from above by governments and their “corporate partners?”

Rappoport offers up a clear answer to that question:

“As if all these outcomes could be delivered to children on a silver platter…” he muses in the editorial, which can be read here. “And the State would make it so.”

“This bill is basically setting up the population of California for state regulatory agencies to fill in the blanks later, to make specific controls out of the vague generalities in the bill. Get it?” Rappoport later adds. “Medical care and nutrition and parenting and education are what we say they are. We define and enforce, you obey…”

Making matters even more frustrating for fans of health freedom is a rather odd group of corporate partners given power in this equation, their names tucked into the text of the bill, all operating within the San Mateo County Office of Education — as Rappoport put it: “One piddling little California county education department.”

The group of sponsors include the following, as he noted:

“Alexza Pharmaceuticals. Microsoft. Pepsico Foundation. Cisco. Hewlett Packard. Dell. Symantec. Unilever. Plus something called the SV2 Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund, ‘building and scaling social inventions.’”

The corporate partners will all be working under the umbrella of “The Silicon Valley Community Foundation” (more info here).

For more on why Rappoport thinks that may not be such a good idea, check out the full editorial by clicking on this link.

Social media photo via