Image from Wikimedia

Protecting the Right to Get Vaccinated:
SB 742: A First in the Nation California Law against Anti-Vax Intimidation

by Arin Parsa

"You should choose what goes into your child's body. They're trying to rape our children with this poison," clamored an angry anti-vaccine protestor confronting parents at a walk-to-school event at a Los Angeles school on Oct. 8 of last year. Several other protesters were vociferously picketing behind anxious-looking elementary schoolers trying to walk to school with their parents. Anti-vax intimidation and violence in the U.S. has escalated to menacing levels, especially since the beginning of last year, when a mob of anti-vaxxers forced a shutdown of a large vaccination clinic at the Los Angeles Dodgers Stadium, distressing several seniors who had been waiting to get vaccinated. On May 24, a woman in Tennessee plowed her car through a vaccine clinic tent yelling "no vaccine," almost killing health care volunteers.

In response to the growing threats posed by anti-vaccine activists, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill SB 742 into law. The bill, authored by Senator Dr. Richard Pan, Chair of California Senate Committee on Health, protects the rights of Californians to get vaccinated without the fear of intimidation, bullying, and harassment from anti-vax protestors at vaccine clinics. Specifically, under SB 742, a person would not be permitted to physically obstruct or intimidate citizens or health care workers at a California vaccine clinic and all individuals who engage in protests or pickets would need to stay at a designated distance, often referred to as the "buffer zone." The bill set violations punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment of up to 6 months, or both.

SB 742, the first bill of its kind anywhere in the nation, sends a clear message to anti-vax and anti-mask activists that obstruction and intimidation will no longer be tolerated. As much as the right to free speech and protest are important, people's right to vaccination — and to protect themselves and their loved ones — must be protected as well. Healthcare volunteers working tirelessly in vaccination clinics amidst assaults and deadly threats from antivax mobs deserve to be protected too. SB 742 championed their right to safety along with protecting every Californian’s right to get vaccinated.

However, as soon as the bill was passed, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Right to Life of Central California, a pro-abortion organization, filed a federal lawsuit. They claimed that the designated distance requirements, a.k.a "buffer zone," of 30 feet from a person who is within 100 feet from a clinic, disallows their client to give informational leaflets to women seeking abortion in the nearby Planned Parenthood clinic, a facility with which Right to Life shares a sidewalk. Eugene Volokh, a professor of First Amendment law at UCLA, also staunchly opposed the bill, stating that the law violates the First Amendment as it prohibits people from sharing specific views (in this case, about vaccines). However, not all free speech advocates shared this view. ACLU California Action remained neutral on the bill. "It's not necessarily the case that the freedom to express our views is unrestricted. They can be balanced with important governmental objectives such as letting people get vaccinated in peace," said Kevin Baker, director of governmental relations at ACLU California Action, as reported in the L.A Times.

On Nov. 2, in response to the lawsuit filed by Right to Life, U.S District Judge Dale Drozd placed a temporary hold on the enforcement of the buffer zone requirement but rejected the efforts to stop implementation of SB 742. Per the court brief, the judge stated: "Availability and access to the lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines are of paramount importance in this ongoing fight against COVID-19 and to prevent the spread of this highly contagious and lethal virus...The Legislature's concerns about the harms it sought to address in enacting SB 742 are well-founded and worthy of the effort." This recent ruling by Judge Drozd is a resounding validation – that we as a society must no longer tolerate risking public health and safety in the name of individual freedom and choice, when those are based on selfish motivations.

Coincidentally, on the same day as Judge Drozd's ruling on SB 742, CDC announced the long-awaited COVID-19 vaccine authorization for children ages 5-11. Children getting their vaccines in school-located vaccine clinics (SLV) became extremely relevant, especially for those families in which both parents work and cannot take time away from their jobs to take their young children to a clinic. Protection for school board officials and staff also became increasingly critical as death threats and assaults from the anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers were steeply on the rise.

Nearly 4.9 million children and adolescents ages 5-17 in the U.S. have been affected by COVID-19, many living with debilitating symptoms of long-haul COVID. Tragic cases continue to rise steeply. With such overwhelming evidence of COVID-19 affecting children and rampant anti-vax violence nationwide treacherously expanding from vaccine clinics in our communities to school campuses, it is imperative that the federal government passes strict laws against anti-vax threats, intimidation, obstruction, harassment, and violence.

The urgent issue on hand is no longer solely about protecting an American citizen's right to get vaccinated without fear of intimidation but also about children's health, safety, and in-person learning at schools--children who cannot speak for themselves and stand up to anti-vax and anti-mask adults jeopardizing their right to life and education. It is time that a law such as SB 742 is modeled into a federal law nationwide.  


Arin Parsa is a ninth-grader at Stanford Online High School and the founder of Teens for Vaccines Inc., a vaccine advocacy youth organization honored by the United Nations Youth Envoy, President Joe Biden and the White House, and the media for its ongoing impact.