EMERGENCY CALL TO ACTION TODAY: OPPOSE Assembly Bill 1940 Schools as “Public Health Centers”

July 31, 22

PLEASE DO THIS TODAY.  WILL TAKE 3 MINUTES.

Assembly Bill 1940 – authored by Assemblyman Rudy Salas, Jr., who is currently running for Congress – intends to “amend” the Education and Health and Safety Code sections “relating to pupil health” and expand “public health centers” on school campuses to provide primary medical, behavioral, and dental healthcare services on campus or through mobile health or telehealth, among other things (see below).  AB1940 is being heard Monday, August 1, at 10:00 a.m. in the Senate Appropriations Committee.  FLTJ Warrior Nicole Pearson has been slated to testify against it, and needs your help to make her points and kill this bill: 

CONTACT RUDY SALAS AND ASK HIM TO PULL HIS DANGEROUS BILL.

Not all Legislators are “bad actors,” and even the ones who are should be spoken to with respect.  Many times, they simply do not understand risks that might arise if a bill is implemented in real life.  It is our job as constituents – who are experts, professionals, parents, concerned citizens – to inform them of these.  Rudy Salas appears to be an ally in the fight against SB866 and for the People, as evidenced by his extensive work supporting and building up resources and facilities in the Central Valley.  Therefore, it is our opinion that he does not see the risks associated with AB 1940 (outlined, below), especially given the remaining Bad Bills currently being considered.  Therefore, we all must inform him of these today and ask him to pull his bill:

    • Sacramento Office: (916) 319-2032
    • Bakersfield Office: (661) 335-0302
    • Hanford Office: (559) 585-7170
    • Email: assemblymember.salas@assembly.ca.gov
    • Instagram: @rudysalasjr
    • Twitter: rudysalasjr
    • Facebook: AssemblymemberSalasAD32

 

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR AND ASK HIM / HER TO OPPOSE OR ABSTAIN ON THIS DANGEROUS BILL.

    • Read our PERK / FLTJ Talking Points.
    • Read FLTJ’s AB1940 Opposition Flyer.
    • SHARE them with as many people as you know.
    • Call, email, tag, and Tweet your representatives.
      • Find your California Senator here.
      • Leave voicemails today identifying your ZIP, that you are a constituent and that you expect your representative to either vote “NO” or “ABSTAIN FROM VOTING” on AB1940.
      • If you are not a constituent, do not lie and say you are a constituent, but leave a voicemail asking as much.
      • Feel free to include 2-3 BRIEF talking / opposition points and/or questions about bill.
      • Email your Senator and Assemblyman Salas with the PERK / FLTJ Talking Points and FLTJ Opposition Flyer.
    • Sign up for PERK’S ZOOM Advocacy Training TONIGHT at 6 p.m. PST. 
    • BUY YOUR TICKETS FOR TOMORROW. 
    • SEE YOU ON THE HILL AT 9:00 A.M. TOMORROW.

WHAT IS AB1940?

AB1940 will (among other things):

      1. Redefine a “school-based health center” to mean a “student-focused health center or clinic that is located at or near a school or schools, is organized through school, community, and health provider relationships, and provides age-appropriate, clinical health care services onsite by qualified health professionals”.
        1. Currently “school health centers” is defined as centers or programs, located at or near local educational agencies, that provide age-appropriate health care services at the program site or through referrals.
        2. The Bill will turn actual schools – not nearby educational offices – into health care clinics.
      2. Authorize a school-based health center to provide primary medical care, behavioral health services, or dental care services onsite or through mobile health or telehealth.
        1. The Bill will allow your children to receive primary medical care [does this include sexual and reproductive healthcare? Not defined in Bill], behavioral health services [substance abuse, mental health], and dental services on campus.
        2. And via a mobile health clinic. 
        3. And via Telehealth. 
          1. Which begs the questions: why do we need clinics on school if these services can be provided at home with a parent or guardian present?
      3. Changes “service requirements” relating to, “among other things, primary medical care, substance use disorder services, population health, and integrated and individualized support.”
      4. Increases funding for these clinics.
      5. Require the Department of Education’s Office of School-Based Health Programs to work with the State Department of Public Health to “support” the clinics.
      6. Change “outreach and enrollment strategies for children eligible for certain health care coverage programs,” consult with specified stakeholders, “data collection from health centers,” and preference-related criteria for the above-described grant funding.

 

MAIN POINTS OF CONCERN:

        • This bill shifts Education System priorities to non-education services (medicine, coordinating treatment and care), and jeopardizes parents’ and guardians’ legal and ethical obligations to make medical decisions for their children.
        • School and education are compulsory in California.  Therefore, parents / guardians who do not want their child to receive or be exposed to medical services on-campus will not be able to avoid this risk.
        • Increased liability for schools, which are already understaffed, underfunded, and currently under-enrolled.
        • Further decreased trust in the public education system.
        • Expansion, reality of implementation:
          • Are we going to be building hospitals on school campuses?
          • How distracting will this be?
          • How much will this cost?
          • Will all necessary equipment, staff, protections, etc. be made available at every school clinic?
          • Will all clinics be the same?  Will all clinics provide the same standard of care?  Or will this bill further perpetuate disparate standards of care based on income, race, geographical location, etc.? 
        • If the point is to provide more and better healthcare to those who do not have access, how is this going to be achieved by adding clinics to more schools, rather then reinforcing and improving the ones that currently exist in the underserved areas that allegedly need it?

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES:

    1. Removing parents from the decision making as the primary caregiver, which will continue to erode trust in public education.
    2. Increase unenrollment by parents who see the priorities of the school systems shifting and are concerned about the availability of medical treatment on campus without their knowledge or consent.
    3. Although some children will be given access to medical care, the majority of children will be exposed to medical risks they would not otherwise be exposed to without their parent or guardian signing multiple Waivers of Liability and Consent Forms, among others, as they would generally do when they go to the doctor.
    4. When combined with other bills and current minor consent laws, these health clinics may seal minors’ medical records from parents/guardians, coordinate services without parental knowledge or consent, and place children’s medical information into permanent state databases.
    5. Financial incentives for campus clinics will lead to compromising the purpose of education will incentivize schools to coerce and pressure students to receive services to obtain additional funding.
    6. The bill includes immunization services but fails to include parental authorization for immunization services, which is in  direct violation of Federal Law.
    7. Undermines vital guardrails provided by primary care doctors, who know what’s best for a child’s primary medical care in partnership with a child’s guardians.

 

A BETTER SOLUTION:

Provide funding to improve access and support of existing medical clinics to improve overall public health.

SUMMER BREAK IS OVER.

Get ready to R I S E.