Sunday, November 29, 2009

The Laws Regarding The Food The School Serves YOU

EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 35181-35186



35181. The governing board of each school district may convene
hearings, make findings, and adopt and issue policy statements
setting forth the responsibilities of the pupils of that school
district regarding academic performance, attendance, in-school
behavior, and any other aspects of school life which the school
district governing board may deem relevant to this task.



35182. The governing board of any school district may market or
license any noneducational mainframe electronic data-processing
software developed by the school district to any person or any public
or private corporation or agency. Proceeds from the marketing or
licensing of noneducational mainframe electronic data-processing
software under this section shall be used exclusively for educational
purposes.



35182.5. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(1) State and federal laws require all schools participating in
meal programs to provide nutritious food and beverages to pupils.
(2) State and federal laws restrict the sale of food and beverages
in competition with meal programs to enhance the nutritional goals
for pupils, and to protect the fiscal and nutritional integrity of
the school food service programs.
(3) Parents, pupils, and community members should have the
opportunity to ensure, through the review of food and beverage
contracts, that food and beverages sold on school campuses provide
nutritious sustenance to pupils, promote good health, help pupils
learn, provide energy, and model fit living for life.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) "Nonnutritious beverages" means any beverage that is not any
of the following:
(A) Drinking water.
(B) Milk, including, but not limited to, chocolate milk, soy milk,
rice milk, and other similar dairy or nondairy milk.
(C) An electrolyte replacement beverage that contains 42 grams or
less of added sweetener per 20 ounce serving.
(D) A 100 percent fruit juice, or fruit-based drink that is
composed of 50 percent or more fruit juice and that has no added
sweeteners.
(2) "Added sweetener" means any additive that enhances the
sweetness of the beverage, including, but not limited to, added
sugar, but does not include the natural sugar or sugars that are
contained within any fruit juice that is a component of the beverage.

(3) "Nonnutritious food" means food that is not sold as part of
the school breakfast or lunch program as a full meal, and that meets
any of the following standards:
(A) More than 35 percent of its total calories are from fat.
(B) More than 10 percent of its total calories are from saturated
fat.
(C) More than 35 percent of its total weight is composed of sugar.
This subparagraph does not apply to the sale of fruits or
vegetables.
(c) The governing board of a school district may not do any of the
following:
(1) Enter into or renew a contract or permit a school within the
district to enter into or renew a contract that grants exclusive or
nonexclusive advertising or grants the right to the exclusive or
nonexclusive sale of carbonated beverages or nonnutritious beverages
or nonnutritious food within the district to a person, business, or
corporation, unless the governing board of the school district does
all of the following:
(A) Adopts a policy after a public hearing of the governing board
to ensure that the district has internal controls in place to protect
the integrity of the public funds and to ensure that funds raised
benefit public education, and that the contracts are entered into on
a competitive basis pursuant to procedures contained in Section 20111
of the Public Contract Code or through the issuance of a Request for
Proposal.
(B) Provides to parents, guardians, pupils, and members of the
public the opportunity to comment on the contract by holding a public
hearing on the contract during a regularly scheduled board meeting.
The governing board shall clearly, and in a manner recognizable to
the general public, identify in the agenda the contract to be
discussed at the meeting.
(2) Enter into a contract that prohibits a school district
employee from disparaging the goods or services of the party
contracting with the school board.
(3) Enter into a contract or permit a school within the district
to enter into a contract for electronic products or services that
requires the dissemination of advertising to pupils, unless the
governing board of the school district does all of the following:
(A) Enters into the contract at a noticed public hearing of the
governing board.
(B) Makes a finding that the electronic product or service in
question is or would be an integral component of the education of
pupils.
(C) Makes a finding that the school district cannot afford to
provide the electronic product or service unless it contracts to
permit dissemination of advertising to pupils.
(D) Provides written notice to the parents or guardians of pupils
that the advertising will be used in the classroom or other learning
centers. This notice shall be part of the district's normal ongoing
communication to parents or guardians.
(E) Offers the parents the opportunity to request in writing that
the pupil not be exposed to the program that contains the
advertising. Any request shall be honored for the school year in
which it is submitted, or longer if specified, but may be withdrawn
by the parents or guardians at any time.
(d) A governing board may meet the public hearing requirement set
forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) for
those contracts that grant the right to the exclusive or nonexclusive
sale of carbonated beverages or nonnutritious beverages or
nonnutritious food within the district, by either of the following:
(1) Review of the contract at a public hearing by a Child
Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee established
pursuant to Section 49433 that has contract review authority for the
sale of food and beverages.
(2) (A) An annual public hearing to review and discuss existing
and potential contracts for the sale of food and beverages on
campuses, including food and beverages sold as full meals, through
competitive sales, as fundraisers, and through vending machines.
(B) The public hearing shall include, but not be limited to, a
discussion of all of the following:
(i) The nutritional value of food and beverages sold within the
district.
(ii) The availability of fresh fruit, vegetables, and grains in
school meals and snacks, including, but not limited to, locally grown
and organic produce.
(iii) The amount of fat, sugar, and additives in the food and
beverages discussed.
(iv) Barriers to pupil participation in school breakfast and lunch
programs.
(C) A school district that holds an annual public hearing
consistent with this paragraph is not released from the public
hearing requirements set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1)
of subdivision (c) for those contracts not discussed at the annual
public hearing.
(e) The governing board of the school district shall make
accessible to the public any contract entered into pursuant to
paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) and may not include in that contract
a confidentiality clause that would prevent a school or school
district from making any part of the contract public.
(f) The governing board of a school district may sell advertising,
products, or services on a nonexclusive basis.
(g) The governing board of a school district may post public signs
indicating the district's appreciation for the support of a person
or business for the district's education program.
(h) Contracts entered into prior to January 1, 2004, may remain in
effect, but may not be renewed if they are in conflict with this
section.



35183. (a) The Legislature finds and declares each of the
following:
(1) The children of this state have the right to an effective
public school education. Both students and staff of the primary,
elementary, junior and senior high school campuses have the
constitutional right to be safe and secure in their persons at
school. However, children in many of our public schools are forced
to focus on the threat of violence and the messages of violence
contained in many aspects of our society, particularly reflected in
gang regalia that disrupts the learning environment.
(2) "Gang-related apparel" is hazardous to the health and safety
of the school environment.
(3) Instructing teachers and administrators on the subtleties of
identifying constantly changing gang regalia and gang affiliation
takes an increasing amount of time away from educating our children.

(4) Weapons, including firearms and knives, have become common
place upon even our elementary school campuses. Students often
conceal weapons by wearing clothing, such as jumpsuits and overcoats,
and by carrying large bags.
(5) The adoption of a schoolwide uniform policy is a reasonable
way to provide some protection for students. A required uniform may
protect students from being associated with any particular gang.
Moreover, by requiring schoolwide uniforms teachers and
administrators may not need to occupy as much of their time learning
the subtleties of gang regalia.
(6) To control the environment in public schools to facilitate and
maintain an effective learning environment and to keep the focus of
the classroom on learning and not personal safety, schools need the
authorization to implement uniform clothing requirements for our
public school children.
(7) Many educators believe that school dress significantly
influences pupil behavior. This influence is evident on school
dressup days and color days. Schools that have adopted school
uniforms experience a "coming together feeling," greater school
pride, and better behavior in and out of the classroom.
(b) The governing board of any school district may adopt or
rescind a reasonable dress code policy that requires pupils to wear a
schoolwide uniform or prohibits pupils from wearing "gang-related
apparel" if the governing board of the school district approves a
plan that may be initiated by an individual school's principal,
staff, and parents and determines that the policy is necessary for
the health and safety of the school environment. Individual schools
may include the reasonable dress code policy as part of its school
safety plan, pursuant to Section 32281.
(c) Adoption and enforcement of a reasonable dress code policy
pursuant to subdivision (b) is not a violation of Section 48950. For
purposes of this section, Section 48950 shall apply to elementary,
high school, and unified school districts. If a schoolwide uniform
is required, the specific uniform selected shall be determined by the
principal, staff, and parents of the individual school.
(d) A dress code policy that requires pupils to wear a schoolwide
uniform shall not be implemented with less than six months' notice to
parents and the availability of resources to assist economically
disadvantaged pupils.
(e) The governing board shall provide a method whereby parents may
choose not to have their children comply with an adopted school
uniform policy.
(f) If a governing board chooses to adopt a policy pursuant to
this section, the policy shall include a provision that no pupil
shall be penalized academically or otherwise discriminated against
nor denied attendance to school if the pupil's parents chose not to
have the pupil comply with the school uniform policy. The governing
board shall continue to have responsibility for the appropriate
education of those pupils.
(g) A policy adopted pursuant to this section shall not preclude
pupils that participate in a nationally recognized youth organization
from wearing organization uniforms on days that the organization has
a scheduled meeting.



35183.5. (a) (1) Each schoolsite shall allow for outdoor use during
the schoolday, articles of sun-protective clothing, including, but
not limited to, hats.
(2) Each schoolsite may set a policy related to the type of
sun-protective clothing, including, but not limited to, hats, that
pupils will be allowed to use outdoors pursuant to paragraph (1).
Specific clothing and hats determined by the school district or
schoolsite to be gang-related or inappropriate apparel may be
prohibited by the dress code policy.
(b) (1) Each schoolsite shall allow pupils the use of sunscreen
during the schoolday without a physician's note or prescription.
(2) Each schoolsite may set a policy related to the use of
sunscreen by pupils during the schoolday.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, sunscreen is not an
over-the-counter medication.
(4) Nothing in this subdivision requires school personnel to
assist pupils in applying sunscreen.


35184. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
governing board of a high school district may enter into a contract
with the governing board of any of its feeder elementary school
districts to provide instruction at the schools of the high school
district to all or a portion of the pupils enrolled in the sixth
grade at the contracting elementary school district.
(b) For the purpose of computing allowances and apportionments
pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 41600) and Article 2
(commencing with Section 42230) of Chapter 7 of Part 24, the
contracting elementary school shall continue to report average daily
attendance for those sixth grade pupils. Upon receipt of any funds
allocated to the elementary school district based upon the average
daily attendance reported for those sixth grade pupils, the
contracting elementary school district shall transfer those moneys to
the contracting high school district.



35185. A school district may require proof of registration pursuant
to Article 8.2 (commencing with Section 12620) of Chapter 6 of
Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, as a condition to
agreement to enroll that student.


35186. (a) A school district shall use the uniform complaint
process it has adopted as required by Chapter 5.1 (commencing with
Section 4600) of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, with
modifications, as necessary, to help identify and resolve any
deficiencies related to instructional materials, emergency or urgent
facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health and safety of
pupils or staff, and teacher vacancy or misassignment.
(1) A complaint may be filed anonymously. A complainant who
identifies himself or herself is entitled to a response if he or she
indicates that a response is requested. A complaint form shall
include a space to mark to indicate whether a response is requested.
All complaints and responses are public records.
(2) The complaint form shall specify the location for filing a
complaint. A complainant may add as much text to explain the
complaint as he or she wishes.
(3) A complaint shall be filed with the principal of the school or
his or her designee. A complaint about problems beyond the authority
of the school principal shall be forwarded in a timely manner but
not to exceed 10 working days to the appropriate school district
official for resolution.
(b) The principal or the designee of the district superintendent,
as applicable, shall make all reasonable efforts to investigate any
problem within his or her authority. The principal or designee of the
district superintendent shall remedy a valid complaint within a
reasonable time period but not to exceed 30 working days from the
date the complaint was received. The principal or designee of the
district superintendent shall report to the complainant the
resolution of the complaint within 45 working days of the initial
filing. If the principal makes this report, the principal shall also
report the same information in the same timeframe to the designee of
the district superintendent.
(c) A complainant not satisfied with the resolution of the
principal or the designee of the district superintendent has the
right to describe the complaint to the governing board of the school
district at a regularly scheduled hearing of the governing board. As
to complaints involving a condition of a facility that poses an
emergency or urgent threat, as defined in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (c) of Section 17592.72, a complainant who is not
satisfied with the resolution proffered by the principal or the
designee of the district superintendent has the right to file an
appeal to the Superintendent, who shall provide a written report to
the State Board of Education describing the basis for the complaint
and, as appropriate, a proposed remedy for the issue described in the
complaint.
(d) A school district shall report summarized data on the nature
and resolution of all complaints on a quarterly basis to the county
superintendent of schools and the governing board of the school
district. The summaries shall be publicly reported on a quarterly
basis at a regularly scheduled meeting of the governing board of the
school district. The report shall include the number of complaints
by general subject area with the number of resolved and unresolved
complaints. The complaints and written responses shall be available
as public records.
(e) The procedure required pursuant to this section is intended to
address all of the following:
(1) A complaint related to instructional materials as follows:
(A) A pupil, including an English learner, does not have
standards-aligned textbooks or instructional materials or
state-adopted or district-adopted textbooks or other required
instructional material to use in class.
(B) A pupil does not have access to instructional materials to use
at home or after school.
(C) Textbooks or instructional materials are in poor or unusable
condition, have missing pages, or are unreadable due to damage.
(2) A complaint related to teacher vacancy or misassignment as
follows:
(A) A semester begins and a teacher vacancy exists.
(B) A teacher who lacks credentials or training to teach English
learners is assigned to teach a class with more than 20-percent
English learner pupils in the class. This subparagraph does not
relieve a school district from complying with state or federal law
regarding teachers of English learners.
(C) A teacher is assigned to teach a class for which the teacher
lacks subject matter competency.
(3) A complaint related to the condition of facilities that pose
an emergency or urgent threat to the health or safety of pupils or
staff as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section
17592.72 and any other emergency conditions the school district
determines appropriate.
(f) In order to identify appropriate subjects of complaint, a
notice shall be posted in each classroom in each school in the school
district notifying parents, guardians, pupils, and teachers of the
following:
(1) There should be sufficient textbooks and instructional
materials. For there to be sufficient textbooks and instructional
materials each pupil, including English learners, must have a
textbook or instructional materials, or both, to use in class and to
take home.
(2) School facilities must be clean, safe, and maintained in good
repair.
(3) There should be no teacher vacancies or misassignments as
defined in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (h).
(4) The location at which to obtain a form to file a complaint in
case of a shortage. Posting a notice downloadable from the Web site
of the department shall satisfy this requirement.
(g) A local educational agency shall establish local policies and
procedures, post notices, and implement this section on or before
January 1, 2005.
(h) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Good repair" has the same meaning as specified in subdivision
(d) of Section 17002.
(2) "Misassignment" means the placement of a certificated employee
in a teaching or services position for which the employee does not
hold a legally recognized certificate or credential or the placement
of a certificated employee in a teaching or services position that
the employee is not otherwise authorized by statute to hold.
(3) "Teacher vacancy" means a position to which a single
designated certificated employee has not been assigned at the
beginning of the year for an entire year or, if the position is for a
one-semester course, a position to which a single designated
certificated employee has not been assigned at the beginning of a
semester for an entire semester.

Student Dress Code: Constitutional Requirements and Policy Suggestions

Student Dress Codes: Constitutional Requirements and Policy Suggestions

June 21, 1999

* Author(s):
* Max Madrid

* Download Article

Summary
Public schools are delegated with the responsibility of educating students and maintaining an effective and orderly environment conducive to learning. American public schools are facing violence on campus at an unprecedented rate. The National School Board Association estimates that approximately 135,000 guns are brought to America's 85,000 public schools on a daily basis.(2) To counter violence in classrooms and to improve the quality of education, dress codes are being implemented throughout our nation's public schools. Dress codes promote school safety by decreasing school violence and serve to enhance the learning environment of schools.
"If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be allowed to require the students to wear school uniforms."(1)

-President William Jefferson Clinton

I. DRESS CODES

A. Introduction

Public schools are delegated with the responsibility of educating students and maintaining an effective and orderly environment conducive to learning. American public schools are facing violence on campus at an unprecedented rate. The National School Board Association estimates that approximately 135,000 guns are brought to America's 85,000 public schools on a daily basis.(2) To counter violence in classrooms and to improve the quality of education, dress codes are being implemented throughout our nation's public schools. Dress codes promote school safety by decreasing school violence and serve to enhance the learning environment of schools.

Many public school administrators maintain that dress codes reflect community values and create a positive educational environment. According to educators, dress codes promote student self-respect, maintain classroom discipline, discourage peer pressure to buy extravagant clothing, and make classrooms safe. Moreover, some educators have reported that dress codes have reduced the number of fights in schools and improved scholastic achievements and student attendance.(3) Almost twenty five percent of the nation's public elementary, middle, and junior high schools are expected to implement dress codes.(4)

An educational institution may prescribe reasonable dress codes. Recent court decisions have noted that an educational institution must demonstrate that the dress code is reasonable and rationally related to a legitimate pedagogical purpose.(5) Public schools have enacted a wide array of dress codes. Some schools have elected to establish mandatory dress codes or school uniforms. Other districts have prohibited certain types of clothing or have adopted a voluntary dress code. In public schools where violence is a recurrent problem, dress codes proscribe gang-related clothing, such as jewelry, insignias, and certain types and colors of clothes.

The Long Beach Unified School District was the first public school district to enact a mandatory uniform policy. The Long Beach dress code policy affects nearly 60,000 elementary and middle school students.(6) Long Beach Superintendent Carl A. Cohn documented that the enactment of a school dress code resulted in a 32% decrease in school suspensions, a 51% decrease in fighting and an 18% decrease in vandalism with a significant improvement in attendance rates.(7) While California law allows parents to request an exemption from school uniform requirements, less than 1% of Long Beach parents have requested such an exemption.(8) Additionally, local organizations have helped donate funds to disadvantaged children who could not afford the school uniform.(9)

B. Constitutional Requirements

The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution govern the legality of public school dress codes. The First Amendment expressly provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."(10) While the language of the First Amendment can be read expansively, the Supreme Court has noted that freedom of expression is not an absolute right.(11) The government can restrict speech at certain times and in certain contexts. Courts will apply different levels of scrutiny when analyzing the constitutionality of a dress code. According to current constitutional jurisprudence, speech with high value, i.e. political speech, receives a high level of protection whereas speech with no value, such as fighting or obscenity words, receives a low level of protection. Pure speech, such as wearing protest armbands, or political buttons, receives a higher degree of First Amendment protection than symbolic speech, such as the wearing of sagging pants to school, as an expression of an individual's style.(12) Regulations which are content neutral are more likely to be viewed favorably by courts than regulations that focus on the content of the speech. Accordingly, the type of expression governs the level of permissible government restriction of speech.

The First Amendment rights of public school students are limited in the school environment. Although students retain constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression while in public schools, the Supreme Court has held that these rights are limited.(13) Because students First Amendment rights are not coextensive with those of adults, courts do not apply traditional First Amendment jurisprudence when examining regulations affecting speech in the public schools. Instead, courts examine the necessity of the regulation for maintaining the classroom environment. Recently, the Supreme Court has enunciated a new inculcative theory of education. The inculcative theory is based on the premise that schools inculcate state sponsored values and ideals.(14) Accordingly, school officials may prohibit expression if it is inconsistent or disruptive to this mission.

Dress and grooming codes are generally legally permissible.(15) The wearing of a particular type or style of clothing usually is not seen as expressive conduct protected under the Constitution.(16) Various school dress codes have been upheld including a prohibition against sagging pants, earrings, and clothing containing advertisements or objectionable statements.(17) Student speech which is indecent, lewd or profane is not entitled to constitutional protection. However, some conduct by students involving the wearing of "symbolic speech" expressive items, such as political protest buttons, will be protected by First Amendment free speech principles. In Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974), the Supreme Court established a two prong test for determining when conduct receives First Amendment protection: First, is there an intent to convey a particularized message; and second, is there a great likelihood that the message will be understood by those who view it?(18) For example, courts recognize that wearing political buttons or armbands are forms of conduct that carry First Amendment protection because these choices convey a message about the wearer.(19) Students generally have the right to wear symbolic expressive speech buttons, badges or other insignia, unless there is evidence that wearing the insignia will materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.(20) Additionally, student conduct such as the wearing of religious attire (yarmulkes, head scarves, Native Indian long hair, display of crosses, etc.) should be accommodated under federal principles mandating permissible accommodation of religious practices or beliefs.

The wording of a dress code can be significant in determining the legality of a dress code.(21) A school administrator's decision will be given great deference if the court interprets the code to address conduct that materially disrupts or interferes with a school's educational mission or threatens the safety of students. However, if the regulation is not based on a rational purpose related to the educational process, the court is unlikely to uphold the dress code.

The key to upholding dress codes is to convince courts that dress codes are necessary to the operation of the school. Dress code policies that are adopted to combat real and substantial dangers associated with gang activity will likely be upheld so long as the school district can reasonably demonstrate that such policies are needed to meet the legitimate objectives of the school. School officials who carefully document the benefits of a dress code policy may find success against challenges to their dress code.

B. Uniforms

The debate over mandatory school uniforms has surfaced as a contentious issue in school law. As of date, the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of school uniforms. In fact, the issue of school uniforms is a matter of first impression for all circuit court of appeals and most federal and state courts.

In an effort to promote school discipline and decrease violence, public schools are requiring that uniforms be worn by students. Public institutions across America have adopted school uniform requirements.(22) School officials credit the uniforms for a decrease in crime and an increase in scholastic performance. Opponents of school uniform policies have argued that school uniform policies run counter to the First Amendment and free expression.

Only one reported case has directly addressed the issue of school uniforms. In Phoenix Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836, 839, 120 Educ. L.R. 1170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997), the court upheld a mandatory school uniform policy. The dress code provided that those students who refused to comply would be given the opportunity to transfer to another school. Some students refused to comply and claimed that they were entitled to stay at the school and opt-out of the dress code because the dress code violated their First Amendment rights. They were transferred to another school in the district which did not have a dress code. They subsequently went to their former school and distributed information disparaging the dress code. Testimony was presented at trial that the uniform policy reduced clothing distractions, increased campus safety, improved school spirit, leveled socioeconomic barriers, ensured that students dress appropriately, and reduced staff and faculty time required to enforce the dress code. Moreover, the court noted that the dress code involved was adopted because it:

• Promotes a more effective climate for learning.

• Creates opportunities for self-expression.

• Increases campus safety and security.

• Fosters school unity and price.

• Eliminates "label competition".

• Ensures modest dress.

• Simplifies dressing.

• Minimizes costs to parents.

The court concluded that the dress code was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical purposes, including promoting a conducive learning environment and securing campus safety.

Schools should have a clear and reasonable basis for their policy. Policies adopted to combat substantial dangers associated with gang activity or non-gang clothing crimes are generally going to be upheld so long as the school district can reasonably demonstrate that uniforms are needed to meet the legitimate objectives of the school. Legitimate pedagogical concerns also may support uniform policies, although such policies may be considered overbroad and unconstitutional in the absence of a disruptive school environment. School officials must establish regulations that balance the individual's freedom of expression with the public interest of quality education.

Important cases pertaining to school dress codes and school uniforms are listed below.
STUDENT DRESS

Bivens ex rel. Green v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 899 F. Supp. 556 (D.N.M. 1995).

Student brought action against school based on claim that Del Norte High School dress code prohibiting sagging pants violated students' First Amendment rights and that procedures used in imposing long term suspension violated students' right to procedural due process.

Student persisted in wearing his sagging pants to school and was given numerous verbal warnings and subjected to a few short term suspensions. Plaintiff had five documented warnings of sagging pants, low grades, and accrued absences. Due to these documented violations of the school dress code, Plaintiff was given a long term suspension.

Wearing sagging pants was not speech for First Amendment purposes.

Long term suspension procedures comported with due process requirements.

Dress code was not unconstitutionally vague.

Baxter ex rel. Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., 26 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 1994).

Elementary school students' rights not violated where student was prevented from and disciplined for wearing expressive T-shirt reading: "Unfair Grades," "Racism" and "I Hate Lost Creek." Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clearly established right by elementary school student to wear expressive T-shirt while in school. The court indicated that age can be a relevant factor in assessing the extent of a student's free speech rights.

Chalifoux v. New Cancy Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997).

The New Cancy Independent School District's dress code prohibited the wearing of gang-related apparel in school or at any school related function. Local police officers identified rosaries as "gang-related apparel". Subsequently, the school administrators prohibited students from wearing rosaries as a necklace outside of their clothing.

The student handbook's list of gang-related apparel did not include rosaries.

The court found that the plaintiffs' rosaries were akin to pure speech and applied the Tinker standard. The evidence demonstrated that the students wore rosaries with the intent to communicate their faith to others.

The school must show that the plaintiffs' religious speech caused a substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities. Even in the school setting, more than mere speculation about disruption and interference is required: "Undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right of freedom of expression."

There was minimal evidence of gang members wearing rosaries as gang identifiers and the suppression of students' medium of expression was equivalent to censorship of their message. The court ruled that the symbolic speech at issue was a form of religious expression protected by the First Amendment.

School regulation prohibiting students from wearing rosaries as necklaces violated First Amendment right to free exercise of religion of students seeking to wear rosaries as a sincere expression of their religious belief. Accordingly, the regulation placed an undue burden on the students' religious exercise and did not bear reasonable relationship to its stated purpose of regulating gang activity.

The court noted that there was insufficient evidence of actual or anticipated disruption to infringe upon the student's religiously-motivated speech.

The school district's policy on gang-related activity was void for vagueness. The policy failed to provide adequate notice to students regarding prohibited conduct. Moreover, the court stated that it would not be overly burdensome for the district to provide a definite list of prohibited items and update that list as needed.

Hines v. Caston School Corp., 651 N.E.2d 330, 101 Educ. L.R. 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the following rule: "Students are not to wear jewelry or other attachments not consistent with community standards or that could pose a health or safety hazard to either the student himself or to other students in his presence."

The court noted that evidence was presented that the enforcement of a strict dress code was a factor in improving students' attitudes toward school, and that this change in attitude had led to improvements in school attendance, drop-out rates, and academic performance.

Evidence was also presented that under local community standards of dress, earrings were considered female attire, and that the earring rule discouraged rebelliousness. Evidence was also presented that the wearing of earrings by males was inconsistent with community standards in the area. School administrators testified that the earring ban serves to prevent "disrespect for authority and disrespect for discipline within the school" by maintaining "a basic standard for the children to live by...."

The court stated that a community's schools be permitted, within constitutional strictures, to reflect its values. Moreover, the court maintained that "it is a valid educational function to instill discipline and create a positive educational environment by means of a reasonable, consistently applied dress code."

Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District, 827 F.Supp. 1459 (C.D. Cal. 1993).

Students brought action challenging constitutionality of dress code which prohibited clothing identifying any professional sports team or college.

The court ruled that the school district policy (prohibiting students from wearing clothing identifying any professional sports team or college on school grounds or at school functions) violated the First Amendment free speech rights of elementary and middle school students.

The First Amendment does not require school officials to wait until a disruption actually occurs before they may act to curtail free speech. In fact, school officials have a duty to prevent disturbances. Justification for curtailment of free speech does not demand certainty that disruption will occur.

The state has a vested interest in education and that the level of disturbance required to justify intervention is relatively lower in a school than it might be on a street corner. Therefore, a court may consider all circumstances confronting the school administrators which might reasonably portend disruption.

Under the First Amendment, school officials have the burden to show justification for imposing discipline resulting from a public school student's use of free speech. In the absence of such justification, a school may not discipline a student for exercising First Amendment rights.

In this case, the events showed only a negligible gang presence in the middle and elementary schools and showed no actual disruption of elementary/middle school activities. However, the district did present evidence supporting a gang presence at San Jacinto High School, which could result in the disruption or disturbance of school activities and thus may justify curtailment of student First Amendment rights to the extent found in enforcement of the school district's dress code.

The court held that a "student's free speech rights may not be abridged in the absence of facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities."

McIntire v. Bethel Sch., 804 F.Supp. 1415 (W.D. Okla. (1992).

Students and their parents brought a § 1983 action against the school district, school board, and superintendent, alleging First Amendment violations and sought an injunction to enjoin them from applying the school dress code provision to T-shirts worn by students. Specifically, the T-shirts worn by public high school students bore the phrase, "The Best of the Night's Adventures are Reserved for People With Nothing Planned."

The court noted that the school dress code provision proscribing the wearing of apparel bearing a message which advertises alcoholic beverages was not facially constitutional.

However, the court held that the dress code was unconstitutionally applied to students because the district failed to meet its burden of proving that the policy as applied to the students in question did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the students' free expression rights. In this case, the school offered no proof of any facts which might reasonably have led school officials to forecast that the T-shirt message would be perceived as an advertisement for alcoholic beverages and would result in substantial disruption or material interference with the work or discipline of the school, or that it would abridge upon the rights of other students.

Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228, 676 F.Supp. 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987).

A high school student brought a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a school board policy prohibiting male students from wearing earrings as part of an effort to curb the presence and influence of gangs in the school.

The school district provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity and resulting violence in its schools.

The policy prohibiting the wearing of earrings by male students did not violate the student's First Amendment rights because the student's message was one of his individuality and such message was not within the protected scope of the First Amendment.

The court upheld the District's dress code policy, concluding that the Board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students and the curtailment of gang activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment.

Pyle ex rel. Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F.Supp. 157 (D.Mass. 1994).

Students brought action against school officials to challenge school dress code and sought injunction against the enforcement of the dress code.

School could prohibit students from wearing T-shirts that have slogans: "Co-Ed Naked Band: Do It To The Rhythm" and "See Dick Drink. See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don't Be A Dick" as disruptive to school's basic educational message and to prohibit "obscene, profane, lewd or vulgar" apparel, even if such messages were political.

First Amendment permits minimal, if at all, discretion of school officials to restrict vulgar speech, including speech containing sexual innuendo.

Reasonable limitations on vulgarity do facilitate a school's educational mission.

However, the provision of the dress code that prohibited clothing "directed toward or intended to harass, threaten, intimidate, or demean" because of sex, color, race, religion, handicap, national origin or sexual orientation was unconstitutional as being directed to speech rather than disruption or vulgarity.

Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997).

An honor student, who had a small tattoo of a cross between her thumb and index finger, was ordered by the district to remove or alter the tattoo or face expulsion. The student had no record of disciplinary problems and there was no evidence that the student was involved in gang activity. Moreover, the student denied that the tattoo was a gang symbol.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a school regulation aimed at preventing gang activity in school was void for vagueness.

The school regulation on forbidden gang activities provided that: "Gang related activities such as display of colors, symbols, signs, etc. will not be tolerated on school grounds. Students who violate the regulation will be suspended from school and/or recommended to the school board for expulsion."

High school students challenged the school district's regulation prohibiting gang symbols, as void for vagueness required lesser standard of scrutiny due to the public school setting, but proportionately greater levels of scrutiny because the regulation breached the exercise of free speech by forbidding common religious symbols.

The Eighth Court of Appeals held that the school regulation violated the purpose of the void for vagueness doctrine because it did not provide adequate notice regarding unacceptable conduct nor offered clear guidance for those who apply it.

The school district's regulation prohibiting gang symbols without providing any definition of "gang" was void for vagueness because it allowed school administrators and local police unfettered discretion to decide what represented a gang symbol.

SCHOOL UNIFORMS

Phoenix Elementary School Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1997).

The Court of Appeals of Arizona upheld a mandatory dress code requiring students attending a particular school in the district to wear uniforms.

The dress code had a reasonable relation to the pedagogical purpose of the school, including the promotion of a more effective climate for learning and increased campus safety and security.

II. POLICY SUGGESTIONS CHECKLIST(23)

Consult your school district's dress code.

Policy should focus on pedagogical and school safety concerns.

Parental support of a dress code is instrumental in garnering support for the policy. Determine whether parents support school dress code requirements. Seek input on designing the uniform.

Content of uniform defined by students, parents and school administrators.

Consider including justifications in school dress code policy, such as student safety, decreasing criminal activity, preventing gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school, maintaining classroom discipline, promoting student self-respect, discouraging peer pressure, and enabling school officials to recognize intruders who come to school.

Determine whether to have a mandatory v. voluntary school policy.

Treat school uniforms as part of an overall safety program.

Allow some variety and flexibility in the dress code policy.

Be able to justify the action by demonstrating the link between a certain kind of dress and disruptive behavior.

When drafting a dress code policy, proscribe general types of clothing or dress and refrain from including specific references to a certain brand of clothing.

Provide students with notice of the dress code policy.

Protect student's other rights of expression.

Consider financial assistance to students unable to afford school uniforms.

Do not require students to wear a particular message on a school uniform..

The school dress code should have flexibility to accommodate students whose religious attire may be inconsistent with school dress code.

To avoid challenges on the basis of gender equality, uniforms should be gender neutral. For example, a school should offer a skirts and pants option for young female students.

Provide for an appeals process to allow for student due process.

Apply dress code impartially, consistently, fairly, and in an equal manner.

Strive to maintain empirical evidence, such as reduction in criminal activity and student discipline reports, in order to establish the effectiveness of school dress code policy.

Consult school attorney.

Update school dress code on a consistent basis.

III. REFERENCES

American Jurisprudence 2d, schools, § 265, Dress and Grooming Regulations.

Alison M. Barbarosh, Comment, Undressing the First Amendment in Public Schools: Do Uniform Dress Codes Violate Students' First Amendment Rights? 28 Loy. La. L.Rev. 1415 (Summer 1995).

Baxter ex rel. Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., 26 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 1994).

Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Bivens ex rel. Givens v. Albuquerque Public Schs., 899 F.Supp. 556 (D.N.M. 1995).

Peter Caruso, Individuality vs. Conformity: The Issue Behind School Uniforms, nassp bulletin 8, 581 (September 1966).

William Celis 3d, Schools Getting Tough on Guns in the Classroom, N.Y. Times, Aug. 31, 1994 at A1, B8.

Chalifoux v. New Cancy Independent School District, 976 F.Supp. 659 (S.D. Tex. 1997).

President William Jefferson Clinton, State of the Union Address (January 23, 1996), 1996 WL 8619985.

Freeman v. Flake, 448 F.2d 258 (10th Cir. 1971), cert denied, 405 U.S. 1032 (1972).

Hatch v. Goerke, 502 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1974).

Hines v. Caston School Corp., 651 N.E.2d 330 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

Lynne Isaacson, Student Dress Policies, eric digest, Number 117 (1998).

Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District, 827 F.Supp. 1459 (C.D. Cal. 1993).

Kaff v. Schmidt, 460 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1972).

Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961).

Wendy Mahling, Note, Secondhand Codes: An Analysis of the Constitutionality of Dress Codes in the Public Schools, 80 Minn. L.Rev. 715 (February 1996).

McIntire v. Bethel Sch., 804 F.Supp. 1415 (W.D. Okla. 1992).

Paul D. Murphy, Note, Restricting Gang Clothing in Public Schools: Does a Dress Code Violate a Student's Right of Expression, 64 S.Cal. L.Rev. 1321 (July 1991).

Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228, 676 F.Supp. 820 (N.D. Ill. 1987).

Phoenix Elementary School Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 943 P.2d 836 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1997).

Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F.Supp. 157 (D.Mass. 1994).

Alison Ray, Note, A Nation of Robots? The Unconstitutionality of Public School Uniform Codes, 28 Marshall L.Rev. 645 (Spring 1995).

Dena M. Sarke, Note, Coed Naked Constitutional Law: The Benefits and Harms of Uniform Dress Requirements in American Public Schools, 78 B.U. L.Rev. 153 (February 1998).

Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974).

Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997).

Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

U. S. Constitution, Amendment 1.

U.S. Dept. of Educ., School Uniforms: Where They Are and Why They Work (1996).

Amy Mitchell Wilson, Note, Public School Dress Codes: The Constitutional Debate, 1998 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 147 (Spring 1998).

1. President William Jefferson Clinton, State of the Union Address (January 23, 1996), 1996 WL 8619985.

2. William Celis 3d, Schools Getting Tough on Guns in the Classroom, N.Y. Times, Aug. 31, 1994 at A1, B8.

3. See Allison M. Barbarosh, Comment, Undressing the First Amendment in Public Schools: Do Uniform Dress Codes Violate Students' First Amendment Rights? 28 Loy. L.Rev. 1415 (1995).

4. See Lynne Issacson, Student Dress Policies, eric digest, Number 117 (1998).

5. See Pyle ex rel Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F.Supp. 157, (D.Mass. 1994); Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified Sch. Dist., 827 F.Supp. 1459 (C.D.Cal. 1993); See generally James Rapp, education law § 9.02 (8)(c).

6. The district did not include high school students on the premise that high school students would not accept the uniforms. See generally Troy N. Nelson, Commentary, If Clothes Make the Person, Do Uniforms Make the Student? Constitutional Free Speech Right and Student Uniforms in Public Schools, West's Education Law Reporter (July 1997).

7. See Peter Caruso, Individuality vs. Conformity: The Issue Behind School Uniforms. NASSP Bulletin 8, 581 (September 1996).

8. Id.

9. Id.

10. U.S. Const., Amend. 1.

11. See Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) (rejecting the view that freedom of speech and association are absolutes).

12. Compare Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (the wearing of armbands in public school as a form of symbolic protest by students who were quiet and passive was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment) with Bivens ex rel. Green v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 899 F.Supp. 556 (D.N.M. 1995) (the wearing of a particular type or style of clothing is not expressive conduct protected under the Constitution).

13. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) (recognizing that First Amendment rights are "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment").

14. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 625 (1986) (schools have a legitimate interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially acceptable behavior as part of its educational mission).

15. Id. at 507-508 ("The problem posed by the present case [involving armbands] does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style, or deportment").

16. See Bivens v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 899 F.Supp. 556, 560 (D.N.M. 1995); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 507-08 (1969); Freeman v. Flake, 448 F.2d 258, 260-61 (10th Cir. 1971), cert denied, 405 U.S. 1032 (1972); Hatch v. Goerke, 502 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1974); Olesen v. Board of Education, 676 F.Supp. 820, 822 (N.D. Ill. 1987).

17. Public school officials may take broad measures to create an environment that is conducive to learning. Accordingly, public schools may proscribe student conduct which is disruptive. See, e.g., Bivens v. Albuquerque Public Schools, 899 F. Supp. 556 (D. N.M. 1995) (upholding high school policy that banned sagging pants); Jeglin v. San Jacinto Unified School District, 827 F. Supp. 1459 (C.D. Cal. 1993) (upholding school district policy that banned clothing with writing or insignia that identifies any professional or college sports team); Oleson v. Board of Education of School District No. 228, 676 F. Supp. 820 (1987) (upholding a school anti-gang policy that forbade the wearing of gang symbols, jewelry or emblems, as applied to a male student who wore an earring to school).

18. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974).

19. See McIntire v. Bethel Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 3, 804 F.Supp. 1415 (W.D. Okla. 1992); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comm. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

20. Id.

21. See generally Amy Mitchell Wilson, Note, Public School Dress Codes: The Constitutional Debate, 1998 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 147 (Spring 1998).

22. California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted school uniforms. Many large public school systems-including Baltimore, Cincinnati, Dayton, Detroit, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Miami, Memphis, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, New York, Oakland, Phoenix, Seattle and St. Louis, Washington, D.C.-have schools with uniform policies. See U.S. Dept. of Educ., school uniforms: where they are and why they work (1996).

23. These policy suggestions are based on recommendations from the U. S. Department of Education, school uniforms: where they are and why they work (1996).
The following is from
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephaniegutmann/100006717/a-foretaste-of-obama-style-health-care-the-medical-staff-who-told-me-my-cancer-stricken-mother-was-ready-to-go/
If you vow to cover everybody who isn’t covered, but not raise taxes, or increase the deficit, or cut Medicare, there’s only one way to pay for everything: convince people – in the most genteel “do your civic duty” way possible – to die earlier. And it will work. You will realise some savings, maybe even enough to cover costs, because there is always a segment of the population (in research I’ve seen on assisted suicide it’s usually the most depressed and compliant female portion) who can be convinced to stop faffing around and just go already.

The end-of-life reform movement (and they are a growing lobby) have never dealt in anything as crude as mandates or euthanasia. They are about “better managing the end of life” (as a recent report by something called the Urban Institute put it) to ensure that patients aren’t “over treated”. Ending “over treatment,” said an Urban Institute official, “would save money and improve fidelity to people’s wishes.”

See, you can save money and “improve fidelity to people’s wishes”. How convenient!



http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/forced-abortion-fundinghealthcare-what-else-is-in-the-new-healthcare-bill/

Here we see that a 10 year old Child needs a Letter to leave school or do anything elce, but no longer even needs to inform the parents to get an abortion...
Have You Read It?

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure
Pg 30 Sec 123—THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
Pg 29 lines 4-16—YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED
Pg 42 —The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 —HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58 —Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued
Pg 59 lines 21-24 —Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 —Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 —Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control
PG 84 Sec 203 —Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7—Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7—-Govt mandates linguistic approp services. Example – Translation for illegal aliens
Pg 95 Lines 8-18—The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7—Specs of Benefit Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members – Your Healthcare WILL be rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18—Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
PG 124 lines 24-25—No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly
PG 127 Lines 1-16—Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17—An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 146 Lines 22-25—Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24—ANY Employer with payroll 400k & above who does not ovide public opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll
PG 150 Lines 9-13—Business with payroll between 251k & 400k who doesn’t provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll
Pg 167 Lines 18-23—ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income
Pg 170 Lines 1-3—Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Pg 195—Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL American’s financial/personal records
PG 203 Line 14-15—“The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that
Pg 239 Line 14-24—Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
Pg 241 Line 6-8—Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18—Govt sets value of Doctor’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131—Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141—Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145.—TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!
PG 280 Sec 1151—The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions.
PG 298 Lines 9-11—Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission – Govt will penalize you.
PG317 L 13-20—PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own.
PG 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3—PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand
PG 321 2-13—Hospitals have option to apply for exception BUT community input required.
PG 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339—Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing
PG 341 Lines 3-9—Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps into Govt plan
PG 354 Sec 1177—Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!
Pg 379 Sec 1191—Govt creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Committee. Can you say HC by phone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12—Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consultant. Think Senior Citizens end of life
Pg 425 Lines 17-19—Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3—Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death
PG 427 Lines 15-24—Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends
Pg 429 Lines 1-9—An “adanced care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patient’s health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12—“advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 —-The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15—The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life
PG 489 Sec 1308—The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage
Pg 494-498—Govt will cover Mental Health Services includingdefining, creating, rationing those services


Posted by Shundrallah at 6:33 PM
0 comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Search This Blog


powered by

Blog Archive

* ▼ 2009 (266)
o ► November (43)
+ Solutions Through Truth
+ Debunk This!
+ truth movement MUSIC VIDEO
+ The Final Push for World Government
+ United Nations Wants To Regulate Free Speech Of Ev...
+ Militant Boot music video by Plumbjam.com
+ Eugenics-Make Your Own Designer Baby
+ Immortal Technique - Bush Knocked Down the Towers
+ Alex Jones Tv :Israeli Lobby & The Zionists
+ THE FUTURE AND THE NEW AGE
+ 10 Links To Find The Truth
+ Native American Genocide and the New World Order
+ A Culture in Denial
+ Fake Al Qaeda Actors EXPOSED! Adam Gadahn & Yousef...
+ Pre Crime Detector
+ Obama's Eugenics Hoax Exposed
+ Interment / Resettlement Camp Job Posting Video - ...
+ Project MKULTRA - CIA Mind Control Experiments On ...
+ Milk-The Deadly Poison
+ US soldiers come clean about atrocities in Iraq un...
+ Inhofe Announces Climategate Investigation on Fox ...
+ Corbet Report Climate Gate Environmentalist Hijack...
+ MOLDING THE MINDS OF THE MASSES
+ Seems the Brits have lost there morality when they...
+ Google Gives You A Privacy Dashboard To Show Just ...
+ CLIMATE GATE
+ Know your rights
+ You Tube Individualism Speaking out for YOU !
+ MTV Martial Law Warnings
+ Laws Prepairing for Martial Law Civilian Prisoners...
+ CNN Propaganda Segment on Oath Keepers Demonizes F...
+ Immortal Technique - Open your eyes
+ SHORT VIDEO: The Money That Is Sold Abroad Is YOU!...
+ Medical marijuana gets a boost from major doctors ...
+ Itallian Parliment Builderburg Bombshell
+ Judge Andrew Napolitano on Alex Jones Tv :The Gove...
+ Rima Laibow & Albert Stubblebine Return on Alex Jo...
+ Dr. Sherri Tenpenny {In-Studiio} on Alex Jones Tv ...
+ Oath Keepers
+ Pentagon’s New Shape-Shifting Chembot
+ CAMP FEMA: AMERICAN LOCKDOWN
+ War Crimes Multimedia
+ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. On the Vaccine Cover Up
o ► October (38)
+ October Contents
+ George Carlin - Playin' With Your Head
+ GEORGE CARLIN - Who Owns You Americans
+ George Carlin - How To Handle A Heckler
+ George Carlin at Carnegie 1984
+ George Carlin - On Location
+ George Carlin - 13 - Life Is Worth Losing [2005]
o ► September (98)
o ▼ August (87)
+ August contents
+ New World Order In Schools, This Kids Got more Bal...
+ China - Fema Camps - Organ Harvesting - Biometrics...
+ Never Doubt a Small Group of Thoughtful Committed ...
+ HEMP MARIJUANA Pot History and Facts
+ Ron Paul - The American Power Structure (1988)
+ Firewall: In Defence of the Nation State
+ H.R. 645: National Emergency Centers Establishment...
+ The Grand Design World Government 1968 Presentatio...
+ Jesus Christ Conspiracy Theory by T. McKenna on J....
+ Jesus Christ True Identity, Studied Buddhism and t...
+ CLASIFIED HR 8791
+ Israeli spy ring in Australia EXPOSED , Initiating...
+ Dr. Russell Blaylock The Chemical Dumbing down of ...
+ October 12, 2009, 3:04 Washington Monument
+ Support the Jew Support the Israeli Defeat their Z...
+ Beginner's Guide to the New World Order
+ America: Destroyed By Design
+ Masters of Terror
+ Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove & Order of Dea...
+ Police state 2000, 2-The takeover, 3- Total Enslav...
+ Fabled Enemies
+ 9/11 Truth Rising
+ Core Of Corruption: In The Shadows CoreOfCorruptio...
+ Jehova Witness Origination History
+ Veda's and Epic's V's Enki, Apsu ,First Patriarch,...
+ Fabians, Fabian Society, New Age, Dodd, Shaw, Nie...
+ Untested Vaccines, Flu, Gardasil News
+ The Move to Depopulate the Planet
+ Sun Tzu The Art of War
+ pathological narcissism spiritual disorder
+ RFID over 30 BILLION EMBEDDED by IBM
+ Big Brother RFID IBM Verichip
+ Vaccines Swine Flu Eugenics, agenda 21, Codex, Tri...
+ Holo-Sound Patient Sending Voices in to your head,...
+ Vedic, Veda, Deva, The Oldest Wisest Culture Conti...
+ The COMING NEW AGE ONE WORLD RELIGION
+ Past Present and Future (1986 Australia)
+ I AM SAFE
+ 9-11 coincidences ?
+ Robert Arthur Menard - Freeman on the Land
+ P-UFO Part 2 Schumann SM-Levitator "magnetic fiel...
+ Megiddo Gods of the New age revealed as the dark e...
+ Matrix of Evil
+ Loose Change - Final Cut
+ Fabled Enemies
+ End Game - Blueprint for Global Enslavement
+ Reflections and Warnings - An Interview with Aaron...
+ The Obama Deception
+ Fema Camps Mass Graves, Genocide, GLOBAL PLANNED 9...
+ Powerful music clip: Bush knocked down the towers
+ Esoteric Agenda
+ Censorship : Whos Asking the Important Questions? ...
+ P-UFO's Publicly Unidentified Flying Objects Paten...
+ The Philosophy of Liberty
+ Its an Illusion - John Harris - Lawful Rebellion L...
+ Jesuit Oath Illuminati Historic Truth
+ Copyright Spirit Law enforces one person the sole ...
+ Fluride Toxic Waste Poison
+ Getting Outside the Box, Helping to See the Big Pi...
+ WHO WORLD HEALTH ORGINIZATION Global Pandemic Plan...
+ Puppetgov
+ Century of Self Documentary by Adam Curtis
+ Swine Flu Pandemic H1N1 Vaccine Trials Begin in au...
+ How can you exist in this world Ignorant?
+ Monarch Phoenix KM Ultra Pandora Cults Blowback Mi...
+ Money as Debt
+ Terror Storm
+ GM Food Monsanto
+ Generation RX
+ RFID IBM Barcoding Tracking GPS
+ CIA FARM
+ Terrance Mckenna Psychadelic Shamanism
+ Advertising Age Holo Sonic "Holosonic" Immage Soun...
+ CCHR Citisens Comission on Human Rights
+ Thomas Szasz Psychiatrist
+ Carl Gustav Jung
+ Australia in the New World Order
+ Australian Labor MP Calls for Population Control A...
+ Alan Watts
+ George Orwell Nineteen Eighty Four 1984
+ Zbigniew Brzezinski Teacher Osama Obama
+ Ervin László Club of Rome
+ Terminator Robot Brain Link
+ The Trap : What happened to our Dreams of Freedom
+ Buddhist Vedic Akashic Jhanas Meditation scentific...
+ Shundrallah

CCHR Citisens Comission on Human Rights

* CCHR Citisens Comission on Human Rights

Followers
About Me

Shundrallah

View my complete profile

Friday, November 27, 2009

High Fructose Corn Syrup

Gardasil Side Effects

Gardasil Side Effects

Ammonia it is what's for dinner

Ammonia Safety

Ammonia is a commonly used chemical in commercial and household cleaners. In industry, ammonia is used in petroleum refining, to manufacture pharmaceuticals, to disinfect water, and as a refrigerant. In agriculture, ammonia can be used for crop processing, fertilizers, or as an anti-fungal treatment for citrus. Ammonia can also be produced naturally when stored materials such as manure, compost, or other materials break down.

Ammonia can be mixed with water and sold as ammonium hydroxide, or used in compressed gas as anhydrous ammonia (meaning without water). Workers in all industries should know that, despite its common usage, ammonia poses health risks and hazards that require proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and safe use and handling procedures.

The reason ammonia is considered a hazardous chemical is that it is corrosive to the skin, eyes, and lungs. Ammonia has a distinct and irritating odor when it is released, so your nose is usually the first warning of exposure. If you breathe ammonia into your lungs, you may cough, wheeze, or feel shortness of breath.

To prevent overexposure to ammonia, know the amounts, concentrations, and properties of the materials that you work with. Store ammonia in a cool, dry area away from incompatible materials such as chlorine, acids, oxidizers, and metals. Use ammonia products and materials in well-ventilated areas. Never mix ammonia with chlorine (bleach) because the combination creates chloramines, an extremely toxic and irritating gas. Wear the appropriate PPE for the job task and the strength of the ammonia you use.

Wear an air-supplying respirator if you will be entering an area that has high ammonia concentrations. If your workplace stores large amounts of ammonia, make sure that “escape” respirators with supplied air are available to you in case of an accidental release. Know where these respirators are located and how to use them. Inspect and maintain ammonia storage and processing equipment to prevent leaks and exposures.

Swallowing ammonia can cause burns to the mouth, throat, and stomach and can be fatal. Always wash your hands after using ammonia products and before you smoke, eat or drink. Do not store food and beverages near ammonia products.

Skin contact with ammonia can cause redness, pain, irritation, and burns. For housekeeping purposes, wear gloves to protect your skin when using ammonia cleaning products. When using higher concentrations in industrial and laboratory settings, wear gloves and consider a lab coat or coverall with long sleeves to protect your skin. If your clothes are splashed with ammonia, remove the contaminated clothing and flush your skin with water for at least 15 minutes.

An ammonia splash in the eye can cause pain and burns and lead to eye damage and temporary or permanent blindness. If you work with household cleaners, always spray the materials down and away from your face to avoid exposure. If you use or mix concentrated ammonia, wear splash goggles or consider a face shield to protect your eyes. If your eyes are exposed, flush them with water for 15 minutes and get immediate medical attention.

The above evaluations and/or recommendations are for general guidance only and should not be relied upon for legal compliance purposes. They are based solely on the information provided to us and relate only to those conditions specifically discussed. We do not make any warranty, expressed or implied, that your workplace is safe or healthful or that it complies with all laws, regulations or standards.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Article

GM crop sceptics 'emotional', Government food watchdog report claims
Public opposition to genetically modified food is based on “emotion” rather than “reason”, a Food Standards Agency report which will help shape future Government policy claims.


By John Bingham
Published: 6:30AM GMT 26 Nov 2009
GM crop sceptics
A protest against GM crops Photo: Paul Grover

The study published as the Government embarks on a major review of the current restrictions on GM crops, suggests opponents are motivated by “ideological” considerations while others take a “pragmatic” line.

It portrays those against the controversial technology as being sceptical about science in general, relying on “emotive language” to make their case, often drawn from “popular press slogans”.

Related Articles

*
Corn 'contains more genes than humans'
*
How global warming will hit everyday life
*
Climate change 'poses real and present danger'

Campaigners dismissed the report as “patronising” and an attempt to “pigeonhole” opposition.

But the study, carried out by a research group on behalf of the agency, is set to play a key role in a major national consultation exercise on possible changes to the current laws on GM crops.

Opponents fear that the so-called “GM Dialogue” will be an attempt to soften up public opinion to efforts to lift restrictions on the technology.

The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said that the findings would inform the Government's food strategy although rules on labelling and approving GM crops are set at European level.

While almost four in 10 people in Britain are undecided about the benefits of the technology, according to recent findings from the Office for National Statistics, 31 per cent are against with only 17 per cent in favour.

Previous plans to grow GM crops commercially on a large scale in Britain were scrapped after official trials showed that the method of growing could harm the environment.

It followed a concerted campaign and a backlash by consumers who refused to eat so-called "Frankenstein foods".

But a recent Government-published report highlighted warnings from manufacturers that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep GM products out of the food chain.

Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, also said in August that there needed to be a ''radical rethink'' of the way the UK produces and consumes food is needed, to cope with future world shortages.

Under the current rules products made through GM technology must be labelled but meat and milk from animals which themselves may have eaten genetically modified feed do not.

Although there is no blanket ban on growing GM crops in Britain, permission has to be sought on a case-by-case basis.

Opponents fear that the year-long consultation, run by the FSA, could lead to recommendations for changes.

A committee of experts charged with overseeing the process met on Wednesday for the first time to discuss how it would be organised.

Each member was presented with a copy of the study Exploring Attitudes to GM Food, carried out by the National Centre for Social Research, containing the findings of a focus group, involving a sample of only 30 people.

The study, which cost £73,000 sets out to “explore the circumstances in which people change their views”.

Just over a third of participants told the researchers at the outset that they thought that the disadvantages of GM technology outweighed the benefits.

The study found strong support for all products involving possible GM ingredients, even at the animal feed level, should be labelled while the system was dismissed as “inconsistent and confusing”.

But opponents were described in the report as having “varied and often contradictory” views.

“Research has found that perceived lack of knowledge about the subject area causes the majority of people in a survey situation to give an emotional or affective response to the idea of GM food rather than a reasoned or thought out position,” it says.

“It has been argued that this inclines people to view GM food more negatively.”

The attitudes of those who took a “cynical approach” to GM technology are also “clearly underpinned” by a general scepticism towards science.

They were “prone to articulate their views towards scientific development using emotive language”.

By contrast, the report says: “Pragmatic, as opposed to ideological, concerns played a primary role for participants who took the middle ground or felt more positively towards GM food.”

Peter Riley, campaigns director of GM Freeze, a coalition of groups calling for a halt to GM cultivation, said: “I think it is extremely patronising to people, most people understand what is going on in the food chain.

“This language suggests that the terms of reference for this study were not necessarily to try to find out what people are thinking but to pigeonhole people.”

He added: “We are really concerned that this GM Dialogue is more to do with trying to persuade the public that the Government’s view is right and that the view of treating GM with caution is wrong.

“The steering group that has been charged with overseeing this process are going to have to be extremely diligent in their work to make sure that the process is open and fair and really captures what people genuinely feel about food production and GM in particular”

Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said: "This Government-ordered exercise is a huge waste of public money designed to keep the GM industry quiet.”

Emma Hockridge, the group’s policy manager, added: “The last time the public were consulted on GM, the message was a loud and clear no.

“This research clearly shows that people’s fears over the technology are still there, and for good reason.”

Monday, November 23, 2009

Vaccination – The Hidden Truth | Watch Free Documentary Online

Vaccination – The Hidden Truth | Watch Free Documentary Online

Posted using ShareThis

Sweet Misery – A Poisoned World | Watch Free Documentary Online

Sweet Misery – A Poisoned World | Watch Free Documentary Online

Posted using ShareThis

Poison In The Mouth | Watch Free Documentary Online

Poison In The Mouth | Watch Free Documentary Online

Posted using ShareThis

Define these words. Research the side effects and write them down.

Calcium Sterate
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Citrus Cloud Emulsion
Di-Glycerides
Fructose
Ascorbic Acid
Xanthan Gum
Ethel Acetate
Sorbic Acid
Vanilla Extract Starch
White Vinegar
Baking Powder
Gluten
Cellulose
Xylitol

Ongoing Homework Assignment

Homework: Ongoing Assignment

Please go to our website and read two of the articles posted. After reading your selected articles, please take the time to respond to both readings in a well written one page response. You are to complete one per article that you read.

In your response students are asked to express your views and perspectives on the articles that you have selected.

You are also required to define 50 words from each article that you read. For a grand total of 100 new or unfamiliar words defined.

You are required to read two articles per homework night. All Homework is due the next time our class meets. If you are absent you can email the assignment to me at afa0882@lausd.net .

This assignment is worth 100 points per homework assignment.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Private School Students Learn About Martial Law

November 20, 2009
Private School Students Learn About Martial Law
Posted by William Grigg on November 20, 2009 10:01 AM

Shortly before 8:00 Tuesday morning, a concerned parent visited the elementary school at West-Mont Christian Academy in North Coventry, Pennsylvania. After checking in at the desk, the teacher was escorted to the lobby to wait for his child’s kindergarten teacher.

At some point, the parent made the “mistake” of walking upstairs to look at some of the student-produced artwork. Eventually the teacher arrived and had a “fruitful” discussion with the parent, who left.

Unfortunately, the teacher who had been the parent’s original escort panicked when the visitor couldn’t be found. The administration was notified, and at around 8:30 a.m. the children were herded into the gym, and lock down protocols went into effect.

“Police called in the Chesmont Emergency Response Team [ERT], who were training Tuesday in the township, to assist in clearing the building,” reported the Chester County, PA Daily Local. It’s not clear whether the ERT — a paramilitary police unit equipped with Pentagon-issued toys — arrived in their nifty “Peacekeeper” armored vehicle.

The ERT was “assisted by three K-9 officers from North Coventry and Pottstown police departments,” continues the report. “Warwick Child Care locations on East Cedarville Road and Umer Street were both notified about the potential danger and were advised to go into lock down.” The nearby Owen J. Roberts was also “also alerted to the situation,” but its security team — the slackers! — chose not to impose a lock down on the student body.

Nor was this the limit of the official over-reaction: “South Hanover Street, between Route 724 and Cedarville Road, was shut down by fire police as officers from area police departments, the state police and the response team surrounded the building. Area residents, while not advised by police that it was necessary to do so, were staying inside their homes and away from the scene as the response team entered the building, guns raised, at about 10:30 a.m.”

Notice that this crack tactical team spent two hours dithering and skulking around the perimeter before entering the school. Had the parent whose innocuous behavior triggered this crackdown been an actual terrorist, he most likely would have finished his killing spree by the time the heroic, battle-ready ERT actually been on the scene.

Remember: Whenever a shooting rampage takes place, all the police are good for is drawing chalk outlines and stringing up the crime scene tape after the victims have been slaughtered.

At 11:14 — more than three hours after this exercise in police state absurdity began — the all-clear was given and the children were permitted to leave the gym.

“Because of our cooperation with the police department here and our safety team that was in place, no children were at risk,” insisted school administrator Dr. James Smock. In fact, the only “risk” the children faced that morning was a result of the school’s over-reaction, which resulted in a potentially dangerous visit by over-anxious, armed tax-feeders in camouflage.
Reddit • Digg this • Stumble It • Shout It • Add to Mixx • Discuss on Newsvine
« Previous: Lou Dobbs Is Antiwar Now!? | LRC Home | LRC Blog

[Comments are closed.]

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

H1N1 Influenza Ingredients

Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccines Descriptions and Ingredients

The Description and Ingredients information on this page is excerpted from the package inserts for each of the licensed Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccines. Click on the below "Package Insert" links to view the complete original documentation provided by each manufacturer.
INJECTIBLE VACCINES

CSL Limited
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is formulated to contain 15 mcg HA per 0.5 mL dose of influenza A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like virus.

The single-dose formulation is preservative-free; thimerosal, a mercury derivative, is not used in the manufacturing process for this formulation. The multi-dose formulation contains thimerosal, added as a preservative; each 0.5 mL dose contains 24.5 mcg of mercury.

A single 0.5 mL dose of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine contains sodium chloride (4.1 mg), monobasic sodium phosphate (80 mcg), dibasic sodium phosphate (300 mcg), monobasic potassium phosphate (20 mcg), potassium chloride (20 mcg), and calcium chloride (1.5 mcg). From the manufacturing process, each dose may also contain residual amounts of sodium taurodeoxycholate (≤ 10 ppm), ovalbumin (≤ 1 mcg), neomycin sulfate (≤ 0.2 picograms [pg]), polymyxin B (≤ 0.03 pg), and beta-propiolactone (< 25 nanograms).

The rubber tip cap and plunger used for the preservative-free, single-dose syringes and the rubber stoppers used for the multi-dose vial contain no latex.

Package Insert - CSL Limited Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine

ID Biomedical Corporation of Quebec

Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is a monovalent, split-virion, inactivated influenza virus subtype A vaccine prepared from virus propagated in the allantoic cavity of embryonated hens’ eggs. The virus is inactivated with ultraviolet light treatment followed by formaldehyde treatment, purified by centrifugation, and disrupted with sodium deoxycholate.

Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine, for intramuscular injection, is a homogenized, sterile, colorless to slightly opalescent suspension in a phosphate-buffered saline solution formulated to contain 15 mcg hemagglutinin per 0.5-mL dose of the influenza A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like virus. Thimerosal, a mercury derivative, is added as a preservative. Each dose contains 25 mcg mercury. Each dose may also contain residual amounts of egg proteins (≤1 mcg ovalbumin), formaldehyde (≤25 mcg), and sodium deoxycholate (≤50 mcg). Antibiotics are not used in the manufacture of this vaccine.

The vial stopper does not contain latex.

Package insert – ID Biomedical Corporation of Quebec Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Limited
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is a homogenized, sterile, slightly opalescent suspension in a phosphate buffered saline. Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is formulated to contain 15 mcg hemagglutinin (HA) per 0.5-mL dose of the following virus strain: A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like virus.

The 0.5-mL prefilled syringe presentation is formulated without preservative. Thimerosal, a mercury derivative used during manufacturing, is removed by subsequent purification steps to a trace amount (≤ 1 mcg mercury per 0.5-mL dose).

The 5-mL multidose vial formulation contains thimerosal, a mercury derivative, added as a preservative. Each 0.5-mL dose from the multidose vial contains 25 mcg mercury.

Each dose from the multidose vial or from the prefilled syringe may also contain residual amounts of egg proteins (≤ 1 mcg ovalbumin), polymyxin (≤ 3.75 mcg), neomycin (≤ 2.5 mcg), betapropiolactone (not more than 0.5 mcg) and nonylphenol ethoxylate (not more than 0.015% w/v).

The multidose vial stopper and the syringe stopper/plunger do not contain latex.

Package Insert - Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Limited Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine

Sanofi Pasteur, Inc.
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is formulated to contain 15 mcg hemagglutinin (HA) of influenza A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) v-like virus per 0.5 mL dose. Gelatin 0.05% is added as a stabilizer. Each 0.5 mL dose may contain residual amounts of formaldehyde (not more than 100 mcg), polyethylene glycol p-isooctylphenyl ether (not more than 0.02%), and sucrose (not more than 2.0%).

There is no thimerosal used in the manufacturing process of the single-dose presentations of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine. The multi-dose presentation of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine contains thimerosal, a mercury derivative, added as a preservative. Each 0.5 mL dose of the multidose presentation contains 25 mcg mercury.

Antibiotics are not used in the manufacture of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine.

All presentations of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine do not contain latex.

Package Insert - Sanofi Pasteur, Inc Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine
INTRANASAL (NASAL SPRAY)

MedImmune LLC
Each pre-filled refrigerated Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal sprayer contains a single 0.2 mL dose. Each 0.2 mL dose contains 106.5-7.5 FFU of the live attenuated influenza virus reassortant of the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus: A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v. Each 0.2 mL dose also contains 0.188 mg/dose monosodium glutamate, 2.00 mg/dose hydrolyzed porcine gelatin, 2.42 mg/dose arginine, 13.68 mg/dose sucrose, 2.26 mg/dose dibasic potassium phosphate, 0.96 mg/dose monobasic potassium phosphate, and <0.015 mcg/mL gentamicin sulfate. The vaccine contains no preservatives.

Package Insert - MedImmune LLC Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal

-
Return To...

* Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccines Questions and Answers

-
-
Package Inserts for Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccines

* Package Insert - Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent (CSL Limited) (PDF - 263KB)
* Package Insert - Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent (ID Biomedical Corporation of Quebec) (PDF - 230KB)
* Package Insert - Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine (MedImmune LLC) (PDF - 311KB)
* Package Insert - Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent (Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Limited) (PDF - 312KB)
* Package Insert - Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur, Inc.) (PDF - 228KB)

-
-
General Information

* Common Ingredients in U.S. Licensed Vaccines

-

Contact Us

*

Consumer Affairs Branch (CBER)
* (800) 835-4709
* (301) 827-1800
* ocod@fda.hhs.gov

Division of Communication and Consumer Affairs

Office of Communication, Outreach and Development

Food and Drug Administration

1401 Rockville Pike

Suite 200N/HFM-47

Rockville, MD 20852-1448