How + When the CV19 Mandate for Children Will Finally Hit CA

February 7, 23


We have to apologize for taking so long to release our official position on this EdSource article and the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for California children; however, the fact of the matter is that we took the last 5 days since this article was published to conduct our due diligence and find out what is actually going on at the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) and Newsom’s office before forming our position, including what it means for you. Rather than reactively retweeting or sharing the article, we immediately (1) spoke with the author, herself, regarding what was stated in her article, and what she knows; (2) spoke with officials at CDPH to confirm what is actually being discussed and done in their office regarding the mandate; (3) spoke and met with legislative analysts, experts, and representatives working at the Capitol to understand / confirm CDPH’s powers and the process of amending laws; and (4) contacted Governor Newsom’s office.

Since you have waited long enough – and in order to be nothing but abundantly and explicitly clear, as always – the bottom line of this article is this:

California has not ended its plans to end the CV19 mandate. 

What do we mean by this and how do we know?

Because we did the work:

  1. We read the article and identified these Red Flags:
    1. “The California Department of Public Health hasn’t made an announcement…”
      1. No official announcement = No official action.
      2. Our inquiry and analysis should end here, but, alas, it did not.
      3. Regardless, let’s keep going to show how you can / should dissect these kinds of media stunts in the future
    2. “… but officials told EdSource that the end of the state’s Covid-19 state of emergency on Feb. 28 effectively ends its current plan to add Covid-19 vaccinations to the list of 10 vaccinations children are required to have to attend school in person.”
      1. Which officials? Why no names? What were their titles?
      2. Per the author (see details below), these “officials” were “communications staff at the CDPH.” 
      3. “Staff” do not = officials in the CDPH with decision-making authority who actually know what they are working on and, thus, bear zero authority for me.
      4. Staff in the Communications Department = staff in the PR / Marketing Department.
    3. “… but officials told EdSource that the end of the state’s Covid-19 state of emergency on Feb. 28 effectively ends its current plan to add Covid-19 vaccinations to the list of 10 vaccinations children are required to have to attend school in person.”
      1. “Effectively” means, inter alia, “for all intents and purposes.”
      2. Does it actually end the mandate? Not for me.
    4. “… the end of the state’s Covid-19 state of emergency on Feb. 28 effectively ends its current plan to add Covid-19 vaccinations to the list of 10 vaccinations children are required to have to attend school in person.”
      1. CDPH’s addition of the CV19 vaccine to the schedule has never had anything to do with Newsom’s declaration of CV19 emergency. These have always been separate discussions. One has never been tied to the other by Newsom or the CDPH. Sure, the idea of adding a new jab arose out of the alleged “CV19 emergency”; however, CDPH’s power to add this – or any other shot – to the schedule was not conditioned upon any emergency or declaration thereof (see next point).
      2. CDPH can add the shots at any time, regardless of any declaration of emergency or directive from the California Governor in two ways:
        1. CDPH has the statutory authority to issue regulations, procedures, and otherwise “clarify” or modify existing laws at any time, such as the Health and Safety Code where school immunizations are currently set out. This process is monitored by the Office of Administrative Law using rules set out in the Administrative Procedures Act.
          1. This process does include hearings, expert panels, and the opportunity for public comment / participation; however, it is not equivalent to the legislative / bill-to-law process we just endured.
            1. Comments are made to the originating agency (unless there is an emergency, in which the originating agency and OAL can receive comments). However…
              1. Are these comments read?
              2. Are they actually taken into consideration?
              3. Do they bear any weight???
            2. On thing I do know, is, regardless of whether they do or not, we have less impact on CDPH employees, who are not elected representatives of and accountable to the people. 
          2. Where there is a declaration of emergency, these procedures are expedited (i.e. truncated) and “Emergency Rulemaking Procedures” are triggered.
            1. Given that CDC has voted to add the CV19 shots to the childhood and adult schedules and the emergency is not set to end until February 28, 2023, it is still possible CDPH tries to add the shots to the schedule under the ERP.
            2. I do not believe this will happen this year; however, it could happen, which is why we were skeptical of the article.
        2. Many people know former Senator Pan’s 2015 Senate Bill 871 because it removed religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines from California children and families; however, what SB277 also – and almost more alarmingly did was – granted CDPH the unilateral authority to add shots at any time for “(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department [CDPH], taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.”
          1. Where you have ACIP recommending to the CDC that the CV19 shot be added to the childhood (and adult) immunization schedule, this is going to occur, regardless of any statewide declaration emergency.
    5. “…. The statement went on to say that any changes to required K-12 immunizations are properly addressed through the legislative process. There are no bills mandating school vaccinations currently pending in the Legislature.”
      1. The last day to submit bills is February 17, 2023; HOWEVER:
      2. It’s February 10.
      3. Remember GUT AND AMEND bills?
      4. Legislators and government agencies, such as CDPH, can try to hide new vaccine mandates in “trailer” or “spending” bills.
  2. We spoke to the author.
    1. See comments, above.
    2. She expected – but has not been told – that this could change “if there were another surge that caused large numbers of fatalities.”
  3. We know the laws.
    1. See SOURCES cited and linked and listed above and below.
  4. We’ve litigated the laws.
    1. PERK, CHD-CA v. LAUSD (rescind CV19 student mandate 12 yo+)
    2. CHD-CA, PERK v. Piedmont USD (rescind CV19 student mandate 5 yo+)
  5. We’ve lobbied against the laws.
    4. MUST WATCH:
  6. Most importantly than all of this…. We spoke to CDPH and the mandate is still on track to be added to the list. There is no update in their system that the mandate is to be halted. Read it again:

There is no update in the CDPH system that the mandate has been halted.

The EdSource article was a red-herring. While CDPH might no the adding the CV19 jabs “in response to” or “in connection with” the statewide declaration of emergency, CDPH has not changed course on adding it to the list. Now that the CDC has officially added CV19 to the childhood and adult schedules and California typically follows CDC’s guidelines, we must be on alert that the CDPH will move on this to add it to Health and Safety Code, section 120335 for all schoolchildren, public and private, daycare and up

Again, we do not know or believe this will happen in the next 8 days because that would be so fast + ACIP is meeting, again, February 22-24, 2023 to discuss CV19, in addition to other, vaccines; however,

What will it mean for you and your child if CV19 is added to the list?

If CDPH adds CV19 – or any new vaccine – to the list of immunizations required to attend daycare+ in California:

  1. Your child will be required to receive approximately 100 doses of CV19 vaccines by they time they reach 18.
    1. This is a 2-3 shot series per year, pending modifications from ACIP or CDC.
  2. Your child will be able to submit a medical and/or “personal beliefs exemption” (“PBE”).
    1. See Health and Safety Code, section 120338.
    1. Medical exemptions are virtually non-existent in California, thanks to Senator Pan’s bill SB276.
      1. Here’s the proof.
      2. See this post for more details.
    2. What will that “exemption” look like for your child?
      1. You saw the torture they endured the last 3 years. What will they do to them now?
    3. Exemptions are submitted through the California Immunization Registry (“CAIR”) to be approved by the CDPH.
      1. Will it be approved?
      2. You and your child’s private medical information – including request to be exempted from / not comply with a vaccine – will be part of the government’s digital database.
      3. Even if you get the exemption, you and your child will not be tracked and monitored by the government.
    4. Once CDPH receives enough exemption requests, CDPH and/or the California Legislature will use the number of requests to justify efforts to remove PBE’s for CV19.


  1. Engage your representatives.
  2. Follow us and our partners to be up-to-date on any Calls to Action to stop CDPH from adding the shot to the list:
    1. Denise Aguilar
    2. Tara Thorton
    3. Freedom Angels
    4. Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (“PERK”)
    5. Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter
    6. Take a Stand Stanislaus
  3. Get ready to #RISEUP.