Vaccination Without Parental Consent or Knowledge—Laura Sextro on California’s Orwellian COVID Bills

August 6, 2022 Updated: August 10, 2022

“We have a bill that says children must be vaccinated in order to go to school. And if their parents don’t want them to get vaccinated, then they’ll just use a bill that says that [children] as young as 12 years old, they can consent to get the vaccine themselves.”

Laura Sextro is the CEO and co-founder of the Unity Project, an umbrella group that brings together organizations across America that are fighting against the vaccine mandates for children and fighting for medical freedom and parental rights.

“One of the bills in California, which is AB 2098—and I think that this is probably the most egregious bill that we’re seeing —states that any doctor that goes against the COVID narrative will lose their medical license,” Sextro says.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

* Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List.”

 

Jan Jekielek:  

Laura Sextro, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders

Laura Sextro:

Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

Mr. Jekielek:

I’ve heard quite a bit about you. I’ve had all four of the doctors that are the faces of The Unity Project on this show, multiple times in fact. But this is the first time I have talked to the driving force behind it all. In all seriousness, what is The Unity Project? What are you doing? How did you get these four brilliant minds together?

Ms. Sextro:

The Unity Project brings together organizations that are fighting the vaccine mandates, and fighting for medical freedom and parental rights. It was really born out of what’s going on in California. I know we’ll get into a lot of those crazy legislative bills. We do have an incredible board and strategic advisory council. Dr. Robert Malone is our chief medical officer, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty is our chief medical ethics advisor, and Dr. Paul Alexander is our chief scientific officer. Then, we’ve got Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Peter McCullough and others on our strategic advisory council.

We were really blessed, because our chairman actually had a lot of connection with the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC.)

Through that, he had a lot of connections with these doctors. I don’t think it was difficult for these doctors to get on board and get behind the mission of The Unity Project, which is to unify organizations across the state of California and the country in fighting against these vaccine mandates for children. Because we know statistically that children really are at zero-risk. We know that they are not vectors of transmission, and yet there seems to be a tremendous push to mass-vaccinate children in this country.

Mr. Jekielek:

What about your motivations? Why pick this issue? There’s a big population in California, larger than many states.

Ms. Sextro:

Right.

Mr. Jekielek:

And certainly, their economy is big. What drove you to become involved in this? You basically started it, correct?

Ms. Sextro:

We actually had a team of four that started it together. Our chairman, Jeff Hanson, was a part of it. For me personally, I was actually looking into what is happening in the state of California and across the country as it relates to what’s happening in schools. It seems to me that parental rights have become the new battlefield for what’s happening in the country, and in the classroom.

I was looking into that, and then it evolved into this fight against the vaccine mandates. In the state of California, the bill SB 871 has now been put on hold, but we believe that they will resurrect that bill. SB 871 was facing us at the time. It basically was a bill stating any child, whether K-12, public or private, will need to be vaccinated in order to attend in-person learning.

I thought that was such a tremendous overreach by the government and really inserting themselves between the parents and the children. They were assuming a kind of co-parenting role by requiring that children be vaccinated. Again, and I can’t stress this enough, I’m sure you’ve heard it from all of our doctors, children are not at risk from this virus. So, this was a cause that was necessary to take on.

Mr. Jekielek:

So, is it personal to you?

Ms. Sextro:

Absolutely. My family made a decision not to vaccinate our children. Unfortunately, I was facing the possibility that my children would not be able to attend school because they are not vaccinated. It’s very personal.

Mr. Jekielek:

But not everybody says, “Okay, I have to start an organization to stop this.”

Ms. Sextro:

That’s a really interesting thought. I had a conversation with my husband. We all know about what happened with regard to Biden’s hundred-plus employee mandate and how that was defeated. But at the time that I was forming the organization, that was still on the table. My husband and I had many conversations. I said, “Listen, I can either fight this now, or I can fight it downstream when I’m no longer able to work and you’re no longer able to work and our children are not able to go to school and we’re not able to engage in day-to-day life in normal mainstream society.”

So, the option was either get involved or be forced to get involved downstream should this bill pass. What’s shocking is that it applies to private as well as public school. One of the bills in California, AB 2098, is probably the most egregious bill that we are seeing. It states that any doctor that goes against the COVID narrative will lose their medical license.

I always use this example. Let’s say an endocrinologist has been treating a patient that might have an autoimmune disorder. After reviewing the patient’s medical history, if the endocrinologist recommends against the vaccine because it may cause an adverse reaction, under 2098, their license would be subject to review, and then they could potentially have their license removed.

Having your license removed as a medical practitioner is akin to being disbarred as an attorney. You will not be able to practice medicine again in the United States, or anywhere in the world. So, it’s a very, very serious threat. If you think about it beyond the issue of COVID, it’s the first step in dismantling the medical system. You are dismantling the doctor-patient relationship, and you are governing how doctors practice medicine. Doctors would no longer be free to truly engage in the practice of medicine as it was designed to be practiced.

Mr. Jekielek:

I have talked about this on a number of episodes, and probably with some of your doctors. Traditionally, the relationship between the patient and the doctor is sacrosanct. It certainly should be. It’s a very strange situation when a governing board can make this type of rule. Obviously, they have no idea about the patient’s real needs.

Ms. Sextro:

The practice of medicine is a very individual thing. There really is no exact science. You go to your doctor and say, “I have a headache.” Well, there’s a process that your doctor goes through to understand why you might have a headache. There are diagnostic tools, lab tests, a series of questions, and looking at your medical history to understand what is best course of medical intervention.

But if we’re creating regulations now that govern even how doctors can have that conversation with the patient, can you imagine how dangerous that is going to be? It feels very much like doctors will end up becoming an extension of the government or the pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Jekielek:

This is like a bureaucratic solution, where people are not really treated like people, but they’re somehow just numbers on a spreadsheet—how many got vaccinated, how many didn’t get vaccinated. But the reality of each individual, which is the whole point of having a general practice doctor who understands you, becomes irrelevant.

Ms. Sextro:

I would agree with that, but it’s probably even a larger issue. It’s just a really desperate attempt to ensure that there is absolutely no possibility that anyone could come up with a reason not to be vaccinated. Again, it kind of comes full circle. We go back to what we were talking about at the beginning here about children being vaccinated. One has to question why there is this massive push to get vaccinations deployed into the human population, in particular the pediatric population?

If you look at the risk-benefit analysis with the pediatric population, we now know that there are so many risks with these vaccines. So, it’s shocking to see this massive push for vaccinations. These bills are so overreaching. We a bill, SB 1464, that would require law enforcement to enforce California Department of Health regulations. The California Department of Health is not a legislative body. Yet, we’re now putting bills on the books that police would be required to enforce California Department of Health laws. Can you imagine that?

Mr. Jekielek:

I can imagine it.

Ms. Sextro:

It’s hard to believe this is actually happening. People say, “Is this fiction? Are these things being talked about?” It’s much more than that. These are real bills that have been authored and at this point they are in some stage of the legislative process.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let’s go through them. You sent me a list earlier and I frankly couldn’t believe some of them. This last one that you just mentioned, AB 2098 with so-called misinformation by doctors being grounds for possibly disbarring them. I forget the term right now, but yes, it’s difficult to fathom. Now, what is AB 1797 that you’re currently working on? It’s actually making changes to the California immunization record database. Why is that an issue?

Ms. Sextro: 

Essentially, what it’s doing is aggregating all of your immunization information into one big database. I know that you’ve probably spoken to Dr. Aaron Kheriaty. His new book is about this database, which is the first step in creating a bio-identity where you’ll be tracked at a state or governmental level. This is an easier way to put all that information together. Again, it’s putting all of your immunization information into one database that is very easily accessible.

SB 871,unfortunately has a good chance of passing in California. Then, you have1479, a bill that basically accompanies 1797, where they’re looking to require any child that is not vaccinated to have weekly testing for COVID-19. Then, the school is required to report those test results to the California Department of Health. So, they’re forming a data bank of information on people that are being tested in the state of California.

I’m sure you’ve heard about a lot of these tests. The nasal swab actually has a known cancer causing agent. At low levels, if you’re only being tested once every year, or once every few months, it’s fairly innocuous. But if you’re being subjected to this test every week, you’re increasing your chance of getting cancer, because you’re being exposed to a known cancer causing agent.

Mr. Jekielek:

Not to mention that these tests don’t exactly have a very high success rate at all. In fact, they basically open the door for a lot of false determinations.

Ms. Sextro:

Absolutely. Of course, you can imagine all the stigma that goes along with this for a child going to school. Let’s frame this with the chronology all of these bills. So you imagine your child going to school and they’re not vaccinated. Now, they’re lined up and they’re being tested. So you can only imagine where are they going to be doing this testing. It’s probably not going to be behind closed doors, so that other students don’t realize that these children are unvaccinated.

Then, these children may be ostracized and made an example. Then, in comes SB 866, a bill that states that children as young as 12 years old—they’re trying to amend it now to bump it up to 15–can make their own medical decisions with or without the knowledge or consent of the parents. In addition to that, they will be able to elect to seal their own medical records.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay, wait, full stop here. You’re telling me that at the moment, a 12-year-old kid, according to this legislation will be able to decide to get a genetic vaccine and not tell their parents.

Ms. Sextro:

That is correct. They can elect to have their medical records sealed.

Mr. Jekielek:

So the parents can never see what actually happened.

Ms. Sextro:

That is correct. So, God forbid that they suffer some type of adverse reaction, which we know has happened. The parent would have no idea why that’s happened. That is correct.

Mr. Jekielek:

What do you think that people authoring that particular legislation are thinking?

Ms. Sextro:

It is a mechanism to mass-vaccinate children. They’re essentially circumventing the parents. A lot of society may have said, “Okay, as an adult, maybe I’ll go ahead and get on board by vaccinating myself.” Maybe they felt like it was the right thing to do. Maybe they’re going along, to get along. There’s a whole plethora of reasons that an adult may choose to get vaccinated, all the way from, “I believe that it’s effective,” to maybe, “I just want to go to that concert and not be inconvenienced.”

But when you bring it down to the level of vaccinating someone’s children, that’s where we’re starting to see people say, “Wait a minute, I’m not comfortable with this. There’s not enough data. This is still under emergency use authorization. I’ve been told by a lot of people that children really aren’t getting sick.” And actually, we know children are not getting sick. We know children are not vectors of transmission, and they really have no risk from this virus. So, what’s happening now is you’re starting to see some parents pushing back on this. This particular bill is a way to circumvent the parents.

Mr. Jekielek:

There is one way that they’re pushing back on it. I was looking at data on the vaccination rates for children based on these new authorizations by the FDA. They’re incredibly low rates. I didn’t see where California is at. Maybe it’s higher than the others, but there are states that have a 2-3 per cent vaccination rate for children. This is an issue in and of itself. But the point is, there’s a lot of parents who are vaccinated, but who are not getting their kids vaccinated. Some of this information is clearly getting out into the public.

Ms. Sextro:

Yes. The information is getting out. As an adult, it may be one thing to say, “Oh, I’m willing to roll the dice.” But when it comes to being asked to roll the dice with your children’s health, that’s where parents say, “Wait a minute, this is a problem and I’m going to need more information.” I think it’s incredibly nefarious, and also an extreme, unethical overreach by the government to use bills like this as a mechanism to circumvent the parents.

The unfortunate thing is that, by design, the elected officials that are authoring these bills are incredibly crafty at how they keep them discreet and under wraps. If you ask most people in California, they don’t even know that these bills have been authored, let alone that they’re being voted on. Here’s one thing that was incredibly telling. At The Unity Project, we actually took excerpts of the language of some of these bills from the California.gov website. We posted it to social media, and we were immediately told that we were going to be taken down for misinformation.

I found that to be incredibly ironic, because it was the actual language of the bill from the California.gov website. It’s their desperate attempt to continue to suppress this information. If people across the country, not only in California, realize that these bills are being authored and being voted on, they would be horrified. They wouldn’t have been as uncontested. And they would not have been so  successful at quickly passing these bills.    

Mr. Jekielek:

This is another question. This is a sizable legislature in California. Is it a Democratic supermajority?

Ms. Sextro:

It’s a supermajority. Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:

Exactly. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that everybody is on board, or does it? You tell me.

Ms. Sextro:

No, actually it doesn’t. I’ll share with you an experience that we had. Dr. Kheriaty went to the state capital recently and he testified in opposition to AB 2098.

[Sound bite/Aaron Kheriaty]:

AB 2098 will harm patients. It will stall scientific progress, hamstring our pandemic response, undermine the trust necessary for the doctor-patient relationship and worsen the physician shortage in California. A physician with a gag order is not a physician you can trust. Patients want to know that if they ask their doctor a question, including a question about COVID, they’ll get an honest opinion from the physician, regardless of whether they go seek a second opinion or follow their doctor’s advice.

The text of AB 2098 makes three statements about COVID that are already outdated, because science constantly evolves as CDC Director Rochelle Walensky recently explained. Last week, for example, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed negative vaccine efficacy against the new Omicron variant. Another peer-reviewed study published two weeks ago found reduced sperm counts in men after vaccination. Neither of these efficacy or safety findings was available when this bill was drafted only very recently.

Advances in science and medicine occur when doctors and scientists challenge conventional thinking or settled opinion. Good science is always characterized by conjecture and refutation by deliberation, fierce debate and always openness to new data. So trying to fixate any consensus as unassailable is going to stifle medical and scientific progress. Frontline physicians challenging conventional thinking played a key role during the pandemic in advancing knowledge of COVID treatment. For example, ventilating patients in-

[Sound bite/Speaker 4]:

You were at the three minute point. I’m going to let you wind your way to the end and not terminate this abruptly.

[Sound bite/Aaron Kheriaty]:

Okay. I’m happy to give several examples of what I just mentioned.

[Sound bite/Speaker 4]:

Well, don’t take advantage of my patience.

[Sound bite/Aaron Kheriaty]:

If this bill becomes law, doctors will be punished for practicing medicine according to their best judgment. Informed consent, which is the foundation of medical ethics, will be compromised. Forward thinking physicians will simply leave the state rather than practice under these conditions. Most concerningly, all that will result in harm to our patients.

Ms. Sextro:

It was an incredibly interesting experience. First of all, it was very theatrical. We go into the the state capital building. Before we actually get into the hearing room, everyone’s kind of huddled together in the hallway. No one is saying anything. You even see the elected officials walking by in close quarters with everyone else that’s in the hallway. The minute that you go into the hearing room, they separate everyone, and make sure that you’re at least six to 10 feet away from one another.

It actually limits the amount of people that can go into the hearing room. Then, of course, some of them are masked up. With this particular bill, it was fascinating because the process is that they hear from witnesses that are for and then of course those that are in opposition. The witnesses that were for this were very, very few. I would say, less than five. For the witnesses that were in opposition, they probably had 30 minutes of people calling in. It was individuals as well as organizations across the state calling in to express their opposition.

We did have a couple of state senators that were in opposition. They had a pretty good line of questioning. They indicated that they recognized how dangerous this bill could be. But then when it came time to vote, I’ve never experienced anything quite like it. It was just a complete pass. So everyone voted, with the exception of two state senators on that committee. Everyone voted for it, even though their constituents were expressing extreme opposition. It was unbelievable.

Actually, that brings up a really interesting point. One of the state senators during the hearing said, “How do you define misinformation?” The theatrics were amazing, and they never really answered that. Of course, it’s clearly by design that they’re leaving this definition of misinformation open-ended. This very broad language within the bill is an effort to have this be a punitive mechanism for doctors who do anything that the state feels is not in concert with their narrative, or maybe whatever the pharmaceutical narrative is.

Mr. Jekielek:

Right. It allows for the arbitrary exercise of power. Is that basically what you’re telling me?

Ms. Sextro:

Yes. Absolutely. 

Mr. Jekielek:

There’s another bill suggesting that the Department of Health should be able to pull medical records without consent. Is this real?

Ms. Sextro:

That is correct. SB 920 authorizes medical boards to inspect a doctor’s office and medical records without patient consent. We have a bill that says, “Okay, doctors are not allowed to go against the COVID narrative. They could potentially lose their license.” So then, we’ve got doctors that are no longer freely engaging in the doctor-patient relationship, and truly trying to understand the best medical intervention for the patient.

We have a bill that says children must be vaccinated in order to go to school. If their parents don’t want them to get vaccinated, then they’ll just create a bill that says that as young as 12 years old can consent to get the vaccine themselves. In addition to that, we have bills that state that California Department of Health regulations can be enforced by law enforcement. Now, you’ve got bills stating you can access a patient’s medical records without patient consent. We have bills that state that children must be tested and that information then gets sent to the California Department of Health database. The list goes on.

Another one that was tabled, and this one was also one that was incredibly shocking to me, was AB 1993. These tabled bills can all be resurrected, they’re just on hold right now. AB 1993 states that anyone who engages in any form of commerce in the state of California must prove their vaccine status. Any employee or employer, including independent contractors, must prove their vaccine status. They were looking to put together an entire task force to go out and of inspect employers, and make sure that employers are being compliant. Of course, they would come up with an exorbitant penalty. Can you imagine the impact that that would have on an economy the size of California?

Mr. Jekielek:

It’s remarkable.

Ms. Sextro:

It is.

Mr. Jekielek:

For lack of a better term.

Ms. Sextro:

This is such a gross constitutional violation. We’re talking about the First Amendment. We’re talking about all kinds of violations, not only of the Constitution, but also of ethical values. Yes, this has really motivated me. I don’t want to live in an environment where I cannot move about freely. I don’t want to worry that my children are actually no longer my children, they’re actually wards of the state, and I was just a vessel of their birth. I don’t want to live in an environment where I’m regulated to the point that I no longer have the ability to choose my own medical freedom, and I no longer have the ability to access good, acceptable, medical care.

Mr. Jekielek:

Are a lot of these bills are basically lawsuits waiting to happen?

Ms. Sextro:

Absolutely.

Mr. Jekielek:

I find it very difficult to imagine how most of these would actually pass a legal challenge.

Ms. Sextro:

Yes. That’s interesting. You would think that this would be a very straightforward legal case, because there are such egregious violations. We have some of our strategic partners that are actively engaged in litigation around a lot of these bills, and also in litigation around children that have been vaccine injured. It’s not as straightforward as you would think. One of the attorneys that we’re working with astutely pointed out that going the legal route is actually the last case scenario. It is a bit of a gamble, because it really is about how that judge decides to interpret the law.

In the last two-and-a-half years, we’ve seen a lot of constitutional violations that continue to go unchecked from a judiciary standpoint. I’ll give you an example. How is it that in the state of California, thousands and thousands of religious belief exemptions continue to be denied? That seems to me to be a constitutional violation, but yet it continues to happen. How is it that we have locked down certain states and we’ve said, “You’re not allowed to go to church and you’re not allowed to send your children to school, but you can go to the local Walmart or the local Target.” It seems to me that a lot of the legal process is being violated as well.

Mr. Jekielek:

You mentioned your partners. You have a big group of partners right now, and not just legal ones. This has been your work, and this is obviously a massive project.

Ms. Sextro:

It’s a team effort. We have some incredible strategic partners, partners that are incredibly well-versed. They have been in this fight for quite some time. Really, it’s very exciting. In California, we have grassroots organizations from Shasta County all the way down to San Diego. We have strategic partners all across the United States. We have a strategic partner in Canada, one in UK, and one in Australia. They are doing unbelievable work. Facts Law Truth Justice is one of our strategic partners. Nicole Pearson is the attorney, and she is representing some unbelievable clients.

These are clients with children that have gone to school and were vaccinated without the parents’ knowledge or consent, and now sadly, the child is vaccine injured. She has three clients like this. We’ve got PERK in Los Angeles and Ventura County. We’ve got California Freedom Keepers. Again, these are just some of our organizations, but they’ve all been working in this fight. We are actually representing millions of Californians. Each one of those strategic partners could have thousands of parents and individuals that are part of that group. So, that really amounts to millions of people across the state of California that are concerned about what is happening.

Mr. Jekielek:

I’ve been very concerned about the vaccine injury side of this. We’re getting increasing levels of evidence that this is becoming a very serious issue. What work is being done by The Unity Project or its partners around this? You suggested that there are legal cases happening right now.

Ms. Sextro:

Yes. With regard to the legal cases, we’ve got some of our strategic partners that are involved right now. In fact, I am at liberty to share about one case in particular. In Pasadena, California, a 13-year-old child went to school, was offered pizza and a soda in exchange for being vaccinated, and was told not to tell his parents. In Mammoth Lakes, California, a five-year-old child was vaccinated, came home, and told his mother that he felt like his heart was going to explode. Obviously, children have a hard time articulating their medical symptoms. That child was taken to a medical center and a police report was filed. They will not release the medical records to the parents. It has come to a screeching halt, but that’s why Nicole Pearson is working on it.

Mr. Jekielek:

What is the health status of that child?

Ms. Sextro:

The child is vaccine injured. There’s a cardiac implication. I don’t have the exact diagnosis, but we now know that myocarditis and pericarditis are known symptoms of vaccine injury. In particular, they seem to impact the pediatric population. Based on the feedback that we’ve gotten, and again, without looking at the medical diagnosis, I would assume that it’s probably something like that.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay.

Ms. Sextro:

We do work with React19, which is Brie Dressen’s organization. You have probably met with her as well. We work with the FLCCC, one of our strategic partners. Right now, they have posted a full protocol for treating the vaccine injured, as well as for treating long-haul COVID.

Mr. Jekielek:

It sounds to me like you’re doing some really important work. Would you say the odds are on your side, or against you?

Ms. Sextro:

Yes. I really appreciate that question. The odds are on our side, and I continue to feel inspired every day. And that seems like an oxymoron, considering what we just discussed. This feels very dystopian almost. But I do feel inspired. The reason I feel inspired is because every day we do move the needle forward. We are getting telling signs that we are moving the needle forward.

For example, the fact that they put SB 871 on hold, and did not just immediately push it for a floor vote is a good indicator that the parents in California were concerned about that bill. People are waking up. People are starting to realize that this is happening. So, I am feeling inspired. We are going to move the needle forward on this. It is definitely an uphill battle, and it’s a lot of work, but it’s absolutely necessary. We have no choice but to do this.

Mr. Jekielek:

Laura Sextro, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Ms. Sextro:

Thank you so much. Thank you for having me, and thank you for the work that you’re doing.

Mr. Jekielek:

Thank you all for joining Laura Sextro and I on this episode of American Thought Leaders at FreedomFest. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVus
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTV
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@EpochTV

Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtv
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVus
Gab: https://gab.com/EpochTV
Telegram: https://t.me/EpochTV