What California’s Vaccine Mandates Mean for Liberty

As COVID-19 vaccine mandates are rescinded nationwide, California Democrats strive to make them permanent.

Seven Democrats in the state legislature introduced or co-authored seven bills in the first six and a half weeks of this year’s session that would increase the state’s power over medical decisions. The Vaccine Work Group includes assemblymembers Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Evan Low, Akilah Weber, and Buffy Wicks, and Senators Josh Newman, Richard Pan, and Scott Wiener.

The group’s proposals ignore scientific data, reflect the pharmaceutical corporations’ influence on state legislatures, and expose the Democrats’ tactic of exploiting emergencies to centralize power.

The Vaccine Work Group began its onslaught 17 days after the legislature convened. On January 20, Wiener and Pan introduced SB 866, which would allow teenagers aged 12-18 to get COVID-19 vaccines without their parents’ knowledge. 

Pan’s SB 871, requiring children to be immunized against COVID-19, followed on January 24. On February 7, Weber introduced AB 1797, which forces doctors and pharmacists to send information on vaccinated children, categorized by race and ethnicity,  to the state’s immunization registry. 

Then on February 10, Aguilar-Curry, Low, Weber, and Wicks presented AB 1993, which links employment to vaccination status. All employers in California would be required to obtain from employees and contractors proof of receiving two doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine within 45 days. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Department of Public Health, and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health would determine whether and under what conditions to grant exemptions.

If that were not enough, Low then introduced AB 2098 on February 14. That bill would allow the state to revoke the license of any doctor who spreads “misinformation” about COVID-19 or vaccines. Finally, Pan finished the flurry on February 18 with two bills: SB 1464 would require local police and sheriffs to enforce public health orders or lose state funding. SB 1479 would force all schools to test students, teachers, and staff members for COVID-19. 

Meanwhile, Governor Gavin Newsom announced plans on February 17 for “a brand new unit in state government working full time on” defusing alleged misinformation about COVID-19. Newsom also said he has members of the Department of Health and Human Services “battling in the trenches and on social media trying to push back.”

During his announcement, Newsom called conservative outlets part of a “propaganda machine.” Specifically, he called One America News Network a “great disinformation spreader” and dismissed Fox News’ “propaganda lineup.”

Wicks withdrew AB 1993 on March 29, less than 24 hours from its first reading in a committee hearing. But since Democrats hold three-quarters of the seats in the legislature, and since Newsom used the pandemic to impose arbitrary restrictions for nearly two years, the working group’s remaining bills easily could become law.

If that happens, Democrats will have dismissed the very science they claim to revere. Four of the bills concern children and teenagers, yet The Lancet, to name just one reputable source, has indicated that children are far less likely to contract COVID-19 due to natural immunity.

In June, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) published data showing the vaccine’s dangers for young people. Heart problems increased dramatically for 12-to-17-year olds who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second study published in September revealed similar findings. In both studies, boys experienced an especially higher risk.

Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist from MIT, and Kathy Dopp, an independent policy analyst, found two frightening tendencies. First, children and teenagers were 51 times more likely to die from the vaccine itself than from COVID-19 if they had never been inoculated. Second, the vaccines actually increase the likelihood of young people dying from COVID-19.

In a February 24 report, the United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency revealed that between January 24 and February 20 of this year, 88.5 percent of Britons who died from COVID-19 were vaccinated, including 64.2 percent of the triple vaccinated. Only 11.5 percent of those who died were unvaccinated.

“There is no evidence that vaccines reduce community spread and transmission,” Seneff and Dopp wrote. “Thus, vaccine mandates are not based on sound science and are ill-advised.”

But vaccine mandates help the drug companies that fill legislators’ campaign treasuries.

Among the Vaccine Work Group’s seven members, four accepted sizable contributions from Big Pharma for their 2020 election campaigns. Aguiar-Curry received the most: $46,950. Johnson & Johnson provided the single-largest amount: $6,200. AstraZeneca contributed $5,000, with Pfizer giving $3,000. All three are leading COVID-19 vaccine makers.

Low followed with $38,100. That total includes $3,000 from AstraZeneca, $2,000 from Johnson & Johnson and $1,500 from Pfizer. Low provided Pfizer and Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, with advertising in a bill he revised in August to include vaccine mandates: “The Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines against COVID-19 have been proven highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”

Just five months later, the Centers for Disease Control discouraged the use of Janssen’s vaccine because patients reported thrombosis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome after receiving it. Johnson & Johnson stopped production in February. The FDA on March 1 released documents listing nearly 1,300 adverse side effects from Pfizer’s vaccine.

Nevertheless, Low still promotes vaccine mandates.

Pan, a pediatrician, ranked third with $31,700 in contributions, while Wiener received $19,000.

The amounts “might be a pittance when it comes to campaign contributions at the federal level,” wrote Lev Facher from STAT News, which covers the medical profession. But such contributions, Facher added, “have a significant impact on a smaller, cheaper, and less scrutinized state election.”

STAT News showed that 81.7 percent of California’s legislators had received campaign contributions from Big Pharma in the 2020 election cychle, second only to Louisiana. Pfizer donated to the most candidates: 1,048 legislators in 43 states received a total of $1.27 million.

By encouraging lawmakers to promote mandates, drug companies seek to reap substantial profits from COVID-19.

“There’s a money incentive for Pfizer and the drug companies to promote additional vaccinations,” said Christopher Cole, the FDA’s executive officer for medical countermeasures. “It’ll be a recurring fountain of revenue. It might not be that much, initially, but if they can get every person required (to get) an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company.”

That includes children.

“Schools are going to mandate [the vaccine],” Cole said. “They’re looking at trying to inoculate kids between six months and 5 years old. I mean, it hasn’t been formally announced yet because they don’t want to rile everyone up.”

The torrent of vaccine legislation also demonstrates the Democratic Party’s embrace of despotism for the supposed common good. Extending a public emergency and instilling mass fear become effective techniques for amassing power.

“Perpetual states of emergency have replaced perpetual states of war as the preferred vehicle for increasing authoritarian power,” wrote Breitbart’s John Hayward. “Emergencies also encourage a more submissive mindset, which is essential for political power to grow. Obedience is the necessary fuel for power . . . Submission nourishes obedience.”

If California’s Democrats succeed, they could use their alliance with Silicon Valley to create the nation’s first social credit system. China currently uses one to monitor citizens and enforce politically acceptable behavior.

Such a system might be closer than Americans think.

A report from ResearchandMarkets.com found the pandemic stimulated massive interest in social credit systems. That emerging market would provide $16.1 billion in investment opportunities by 2026, when social credit will become mainstream, the report added. Systems would include advanced computing, artificial intelligence, and biometrics. Optical equipment alone represents a $723 million opportunity.

The report mentions such companies as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and China-based Tencent.

Social credit systems represent the ability to identify and track activities for purposes of grading behaviors and applying ‘social credit’ scoring,” ResearchandMarkets.com stated. “A given grading/scoring methodology depends largely on social credit system objectives and metrics.”

The potential threat to liberty is obvious.

About Joseph D'Hippolito

Joseph D'Hippolito is a freelance writer whose commentaries have appeared in the Jerusalem Post, The Stream, Front Page Magazine, and American Thinker.

Photo: iStock/Getty Images

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

Comments are closed.