With a wave of anti-vaccination sentiments and teenagers’ recent eligibility for the COVID-19 vaccine California state Sens. Scott Wiener (District 11) and Richard Pan (District 6) proposed a bill on Jan. 20 that would give minors ages 12 to 17 the right to receive vaccination without parental consent.

In the midst of a global pandemic and the rise of the “my child, my choice” movement, SB-866 has an arduous path ahead before it is voted on by the state senate in March.

But SB-866 is more than a COVID-19 response bill.

“It’s not just about the COVID vaccine. We’ve known for a while that we need to expand access to vaccines for young people,” Wiener said. “It used to be that parents simply vaccinated their kids and that was a normal part of American life and in the last few years the anti-vaccine movement has grown and become more strident.”

Legislature similar to SB-866 has been passed in other states, such as Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Alabama. Minors in California have access to specific aspects of healthcare regardless of parental consent. For example, minors can get vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, such as HPV or Hep B without a guardian. They can also consent to birth control and abortions. These medical procedures build the case that the over one million unvaccinated teenagers should get a choice in all vaccinations.

For critics, this bill is a step too far. There are concerns that government control is taking power away from parents. Some parents feel that they have a responsibility to raise their child in a specific way.

“My parents are actually libertarian, and they’re very against the government,” an anonymous Granite Bay High School senior girl said. “So they don’t trust anything that the government puts out. So they’re super against the vaccine in general.”

Wiener is adamant that this bill is not about taking parents out of the equation, but rather empowering teenagers.

“We want parents to participate in their children’s healthcare. That’s very important,” Wiener said. “Vaccines are a very specific need. We are in a pandemic right now. It makes sense to take these very limited steps.”

He also noted that SB-866 isn’t just addressing the needs of teenagers with anti-vaccine parents. It is also a matter of convenience. 

“There are parents who have no problem with their kids getting vaccinated, but they aren’t making the time or can’t make the time because of other responsibilities,” Wiener said. “For many parents, this law will be a convenience.”

There also is a concern about the efficacy of the bill. Teenagers may be reluctant to disobey a parent that does not want them to get vaccinated. For minors, a vaccine may not be worth dividing a home for and may even be fearful of the repercussions they will face.

“I am kind of scared of going against my parents because I’m scared of what they’ll do if they find out,” the anonymous senior girl said. “I know there’s ways to hide it and I have friends who could drive me places to get it, but I’m not really ready to go against my parents to do that.”

An anonymous GBHS alum, now a college freshman, was scared to get the COVID-19 vaccine without their parents approval, despite being 18. They did not tell their parents until recently. Legal independence does not always make the choice to vaccinate easy.

“My mother was more concerned about what my dad would say. And my dad was mostly disappointed that I lied because he is very convinced that it is dangerous,” the anonymous freshman girl said.

It doesn’t help that the anti-vaccination community has become more vocal, outspoken and hostile in the past few years. Wiener believes that the movement can’t stop a bill from being passed, but can make it more difficult. The state senator talked about the verbal and physical abuse that many legislators have faced. In one case, blood was thrown onto Wiener and a group of legislators.

Still, Wiener is hopeful for SB-866 and its potential benefits for Californians.

“It is now controversial because of the anti-vax movement and the misinformation that is being spread around. It definitely is a contentious issue but in the end there is a lot of support,” Wiener said. “In the end most legislators understand this is a matter of protecting public health and even life and death.”