I am writing to express my opposition to SB866. A 12 year old is not likely to have a complete medical history for themselves. They may not have relevant information about their reactions to medications or pharmaceutical products that they have not received since infancy. Incomplete or inaccurate medical history can put these children at a higher risk for adverse reactions. Who will be responsible for the medical crisis that can result from a child giving consent to a procedure out of context of their full medical history? Who will be responsible for ensuring that medical histories are accurate? And who will be responsible for ensuring that this 12 year old child has true informed consent? As a society, we mark adulthood at the age of 18 because of the development of a child's brain and their ability to make decisions for themselves. How can we ignore what science has taught us about brain development and a 12 year old's ability to make long term life decisions and throw it out? A 12 year old is simply not ready for the responsibility of medical decisions. They deserve to have the people who love them most in the world advocating for them, ensuring that those providing medical treatment have their full and complete histories, and that their right to informed consent is preserved. I ask in the strongest of pleas that you vote 'NO' on this bill that strips protection from some of our most vulnerable. Sincerely,

Dear Representative, I am contacting you in regards to SB 866. As a constituent in your district, I am asking you to oppose SB 866. As this releases parental consent and authorizes minors to make medical decisions for themselves they cannot undo, I have many concerns. To start, many minors I speak to do not even know their full medical history and have no idea about the potential risks of vaccination. They won’t know what to look for in regards to an adverse reaction and will not be able to care for themselves if their parents aren’t even aware of the child’s decision to do so. Treatment of a serious adverse reaction may be delayed because the parents could not convey the child’s medical history accurately. So many scenarios could go wrong here and I urge you to please consider what you will do to deal with such huge ramifications if this goes through. Sincerely,

Dear Representative, The state of California and the people of California need you to oppose SB 866. In removing the authorization of the parent, I have to wonder who will be left to deal with the repercussions of serious vaccine injury or death. Since the vaccine providers are taking on the adult role in the decision process for the minor, but have no liability according to the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act if the child dies or suffers serious injuries directly caused by the administration of a vaccine. I have to wonder now who will be held responsible as parents who did not consent and may not even be aware of the vaccination will be the only ones left to deal with the responsibility and treatment of their child’s injuries. Sincerely,

SB 866 would allow a child 12 or older to consent, without parental knowledge, to any vaccine which meets federal agency criteria. That list will come to include the COVID-19 vaccine for children once FDA approved. Currently, Britain's vaccine advisors do not recommend vaccination of 12 to 15-year-olds for Covid-19. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) said it wanted more information on the long-term effects of rare reports of heart inflammation, known as myocarditis, in young people following vaccination with Pfizer's shot (source). If this bill passes, rare but severe side effects could not be adequately monitored by parents/guardians of a child who was vaccinated without parental knowledge or consent, and as a result, could detrimentally impact the long-term health of a pre-pubescent and pubescent child. The risk for school-aged children from complications, hospitalization, or death from Covid-19 is well known to be extremely rare. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, 0.1%-1.5% of child COVID-19 cases in the US resulted in hospitalization and 0.00%-0.02% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death (source). With the lack of long-term safety data, the amount of unanswered questions at this time, and potential legal ramifications to school districts, approving this bill is more risky than beneficial to the health of our community. I ask the legislators of California to please consider abstaining or voting no on SB 866. Sincerely,

SB866 does not address some important factors in healthcare, such as a child will not know his or her's own medical history. With treatments like vaccines, now available at different service providers who are not Primary care physicians, I am also concerned about physicians and providers administering vaccines, or any treatments for that matter without having seen a patient's prior medical history. I urge you to vote no on SB866 and consider these concerns as they can truly be life altering.

I have concerns regarding SB 866 introduced by Senator Weiner and Senator Pan. SB 866 would allow a child 12 or older to consent, without parental knowledge, to any vaccine which meets federal agency criteria. That list includes the COVID-19 vaccine currently under Emergency Use Authorization made by Pfizer. Currently, Britain's vaccine advisors do not recommend vaccination of 12 to 15-year-olds for Covid-19. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) said it wanted more information on the long-term effects of rare reports of heart inflammation, known as myocarditis, in young people following vaccination with Pfizer's shot. If this bill passes, rare but severe side effects could not be adequately monitored by parents/guardians of a child who was vaccinated without parental knowledge or consent, and as a result, could detrimentally impact the long-term health of a pre-pubescent and pubescent child. The risk for school-aged children from complications, hospitalization, or death from Covid-19 is well known to be extremely rare. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, 0.1%-1.5% of child COVID-19 cases in the US resulted in hospitalization and 0.00%-0.02% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death . With the lack of long-term safety data, the amount of unanswered questions at this time, and potential legal ramifications to school districts, approving this bill is more risky than beneficial to the health of our community. I ask the legislators of California to please consider abstaining or voting no on SB 866.