Senate Bill 277 in California sought to eliminate exemptions from mandatory school immunization requirements for personal beliefs. It aimed to prevent unvaccinated children from attending school and spreading infectious diseases. However, some argue this denies education and parental choice. Supporters counter that mandatory immunization is based in science and public health policy to protect vulnerable children. The impact of removing exemptions would be to help control diseases and align with principles of public health to prevent sickness in society through organized community efforts like immunization programs.

1. Running head: SENATE BILL277 1
What led to Senate Bill 277 for a change to Immunization?
Modupe O Sarratt
University of Maryland University College
Public Health Administration
HCAD 630 9040 Assignment #1 Paper 1
Due date: October 02, 2016

2. SENATE BILL 277 2
Abstract
The history of public health is preventing childhood diseases by vaccinations is the health and
safety code for public policy in the Section 120335 of SB 277 for mandatory immunization.
Section 120325 listed the childhood disease for immunization. Section 120370 of SB 277 is the
request for amended for medical circumstances reasons. Section 120375 is the request for the
conditions for personal beliefs to be an exemption to the law. The requests create the debate for
legal and ethical issues for two reasons, medical reasons and individual choices. For medical
reasons, (some to say) vaccinations can harm children to allow children to diseases for active
immunity, for individual choices, for personal beliefs such as not belief in modern medicine or
personal choice simply not to abide by law for privilege. However, the public policy for a law is,
it is mandatory for a child’s to produce an immunization record for school admission.

3. SENATE BILL 277 3
Introduction
Why is CA Senate Bill 277 seeking a change to school vaccination law for mandatory
immunization? Immunization is a heated subject for parents, schools, and doctors that influence
the governor of California to draft the Senate Bill 277 in July of 2015 to allow all children to
attend school without immunization record. This paper will provide the background to Senate
Bill 277 (SB 277), analyze the bill for ethical and legal issues, and discuss the impact of the bill
on public health.
The Background
The SB 277 approved by the governor of California on June 30, 2015 is to eliminate the
existing law for mandatory immunization in Section 120335 of health and safety code for “no
child will be admitted to school without a record of immunization”. The purpose of SB 277 is to
make an exemption to mandatory immunization for school admission according to the bill:
the governing authority of each school or institution in Section 120335 shall prohibit
from further attendance any pupil admitted conditionally who failed to obtain the
required immunizations within the time limits allowed in the regulations of the
department, unless the pupil is exempted under Section 120370, until that pupil has been
fully immunized against all of the diseases listed in Section 120335. Existing law
authorizes the governing authority of a school or other institution to temporarily exclude
a child from school (SB 277).
Legal and Ethical issues for SB 277
Legal and ethical issues are the two reasons to debate the bill for the amendment to
Section 120370 for public policy of health and safety is mandatory immunization for children’s
education. The ethical issue is no children should be denial of education just because of a law.

4. SENATE BILL 277 4
The legal issue is breaking the law for an exemption to school vaccination laws is not a
matter of public policy. As well known, the meaning of laws is to obey. The school vaccines and
public safety laws are mandatory immunization to prevent the child from not having childhood
diseases for not spreading infectious diseases are the matter of public policies for a child to
attend school. For human’s right a child should be prepared to attend school is the responsibility
of the legal guardian or the parent. For public right, a child must be healthy for safety to attend
public school. Immunization record is a child legal record for school admission.
Other debatable legal issues involve medical reasons and individual choice for caring for
a child. SB 277 for medical reasons to argue that immunization is not safe for some children or a
vaccine to immunize a child may harm a child to suggest it is better for a child to develop his or
her immunity from contracting an infectious disease in the Section 120325. The view aligned
with Section 120370 for a written record by a licensed physician that a child has self-immunity
against all the diseases with the treatment of vaccines. The obstacle to active immunity is very
difficult to prove for effectiveness that a child has enough antibodies to defeat the disease for not
harboring the residue of the disease for later transmission. Vaccines for preventing childhood
diseases are safe and proven to have enough antibodies for immunity for a child not to have the
disease in Section 120325. Public health laws require reporting any diagnosed of childhood
diseases for contagiousness is the public policy for a child to receive medical clearance for
health. According to Erwin & Brownson, (2017), mandatory immunization is “enforcing the
laws and regulations to protect health and safety of vulnerable infants and young children”
(p.329).
For the ethical issues there are two reasons for SB 277, (some parents say) for medical
reason; a vaccine for immunization will harm a child or cause child defect to allow a child to

5. SENATE BILL 277 5
develop self immunity against the childhood diseases under Section 120325. Second, for
personal belief, (some parents argue) that modern medicine is not the best to care for their
children to have the privileges for individual right. As a matter of fact “Public health works with
the Center for Disease Control to make sure vaccines are safe for the children’s is imperative to
individual rights for a mandate” (Malone & Hinman, 2003).
Other ethical issues include allergic and adverse side effects to vaccines are rare and
difficult proof beyond reasonable doubt that a vaccine will harm a child or vaccines cause
genetic disease such as autism. Because vaccines are, the art of science to prevent diseases from
not happening, is removing the source of diseases from not causing sickness that harm children.
However, both reasons for exemption are insufficient to proof that vaccination for immunization
does harm a child besides preventing a child from having a disease. Another ethical issue
involves the lack of parenting to care for a child to claim exemption for individual choice or
personal belief to avoid not responsible for preparing a child for school. The school vaccination
law for mandatory immunization is a record of a child readiness for school.
From experience as a mother and as a medical assistant authorize to administering
vaccines for immunization, some parents have the assumption that the vaccines cause autism,
despite not having the fact to identify which vaccine, but just unfounded excuse to justify having
the choice is disheartening for seeing a parent subjected a child to infect with diseases. For some
parent despite the conviction that smoking can aggregate a child’s asthma continue to smoke for
a personal choice. For personal choice, there are no means to convince a parent that science
proves vaccines is safe for the children and vaccines are not the cause genetic defect such as
autism. To suggest, an exempt is just an excuse for lack of parental responsibility. To illustrate,
there are several causes of childhood diseases; it can be from improper sanitation or lack of

6. SENATE BILL 277 6
hygiene of a parent for infecting a child with a preventative disease such as with polio, from a
parent for not properly washing his or her hands or sneezing on a child without realizing that he
or she had polio. Poliovirus vaccine is one of the early vaccines given at infancy to protect an
infant from contagious diseases from the environment.
The issue with exempt a child from immunization for personal beliefs that a child will
build a defense against a disease to develop self-immunity does not base on science to view for
exposing a child to infectious diseases. Other ethical issues include the dilemma of parents
making choices without thorough knowledge, for example, there are differences between active
immunity and immunization. Parents that claim that children can be self-immune from come in
contact with a disease does not know how to measure a child to develop enough antibody to fight
disease. And how can a parent be sure that a child will be able to develop the right amount
antibody necessary to defeat unknown diseases or if a child will be able to withstand the lethal
dose of a disease for not have immunity against the disease to later have a chance for active
immunity? Therefore, a parent cannot make that choice for a child without putting a child in
danger. Likewise, without the science and the study of a microbe for toxicity, it is difficult to
measure how much immunity necessary to defeat a disease. Therefore, how these issues are
going to be resolved is the impact of the SB277 on public health.
The impact of the SB 277 on the public health
The impact of SB 277 to exempt children from immunization is allowing the children to
have diseases is not the policy or the principles of the public health. In ethical practice, public
health cannot denial health treatment to vulnerable individual is a matter of public policy to
protect the people from diseases and sickness, according to Erwin & Brownson, (2017), “Science
is the basis for much of public health knowledge to base an action for preventing diseases”

7. SENATE BILL 277 7
(p.69). Das, U. N., (2011), refers to public health as “the science and art of preventing disease,
prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts of society, organizations,
communities and individuals” that the governments recognize that the public health play the
important role in regulating immunization. A case for refusal vaccine study by Saint-Victor &
Omer (2013) indicates the adverse effects of exempt immunization on the children led to rising
in diseases:
Vaccine refusal and the endgame of non-compliance with polio, measles and smallpox
for vaccine give rise to the incidence of disease despite advances in sanitation and
immunization among children under 5 years and from a refusal to vaccine-preventable
diseases, (VPDs) represent 17% death of child under-five worldwide.
The goal of public health is to preventing disease, promoting health and striving to eradicate
diseases. According to Delamater, Leslie & Young, (2016), “from the history of United States,
childhood immunization by vaccination is the most beneficiary public health practices that have
increase the use of non-medical intervention to eliminate diseases”. An amendment to exempt
from immunization is allowing the harboring of childhood diseases.
Conclusion for deliberation
The purpose of SB 277 is to exempt some children from mandatory immunization. The
public policy is that the school vaccination law is mandatory for children’s readiness for school.
The legal issue is that vaccine’s side effects can harm the children to exempt the children for
self-immunity is controversial for which children to exempt. The ethical issue with humans’ right
for individual choices is the right of the public for health and safety. The school vaccination law
is mandatory immunization for the children readiness to attend public school is the prerequisite

8. SENATE BILL 277 8
for school admission to halt the SB 277 with “a vote of 25-10 to remove the personal belief
exemption” (News, 2015) for disallowing parents to opt out from mandatory immunization.
References
Das, U. N., (2011). Molecular basis of health and disease. Springer Science & Business Media.
Delamater, P.l., Leslie, T.f., & Yang, Y. T., (2016). A spatiotemporal analysis of non-medical
exemptions from vaccination: California schools before and after SB277. Social Science
& Medicine, doi:10,1016/j.soscsimde.2016.08.011. Retrieve for access 2016-09-26
Erwin, P.C. & Brownson, R.C., (2017). Principles of Public Health Practice (4th edition) Cengage
Learning (p.67-69, 329)
Malone, K. M., & Hinman, A. R. (2003). Vaccinations mandates: the public health imperative
and individual rights. Law in public health practice, 262-84. Retrieved for access 2016-
09-26.SB-277 Public Health: Vaccinations. (2015). Access 2016-09-27 Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277
News, (2015). For the right to free kids from vaccinations, local community member Accessed
October 1, 2016, Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=add611af-
9b67-4413-b0fd-