Bill Search

  • Introduced
    Feb 10, 2022
  • Passed Assembly
  • Passed Senate
  • Signed into Law
AB 1993
California Assembly Bill
Did you know we offer free bill tracking in Congress and 50 states, and a great mobile app? Sign up here
Employment: COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
Last Action See all actions
Assembly • Apr 18, 2022: Coauthors revised.
Do you support this bill?
Yay Nay

Official Summary/Bill Text

Comments on AB 1993

Lora McGowan wrote 4 months ago

As an elected official you have been asked and have agreed to represent the best interests of the people of California. I doubt that mandating an individual to take an experimental drug (Covid -19 shot) that has only been approved by the FDA for emergency use and has not been vetted through the "normal" FDA testing and approval process that all other drugs in the U.S. are required to go through is in an individuals best interest, physically, financially or emotionally. The experimental drug ( COVID -19 shot) should not be made mandatory unless the following standards are met. Those individuals required by the State of California to receive the COVID 19 shot in order to obtain or continue employment are allowed to seek financial restitution from all liable parties (Inventors, manufacturers, and distributors) for any and all physical, mental or emotional damages occuring from said drug. If the individual is not legally allowed to seek restitution from said parties then they may file a law suit against the State of California t for all damages and California will accept all responsibility to the individual for financial restitution as it was California law that required the individual to take the drug.
Karin De Jauregui wrote 4 months ago

There are many reasons why our government should NOT mandate vaccines and particularly the covid vaccines as a condition of employment - scientific and civil liberties. Why is California moving in this direction when other governments around the world and nation, states, counties and cities, even within California, that are moving in the opposite direction - toward realizing the latest scientific information coming out of the CDC and recognizing citizens' medical freedoms and right to employment and education.
Ashley Dondlinger wrote 4 months ago

This is not freedom of choice. Hard-working people would lose their jobs or chose vaccination out of fear of losing their job even if they don’t agree. Plus, as stated in the description, the vaccines are supposed to “prevent” COVID. They do not do that. At best, they lessen symptoms. So let’s not force a drug on people that does not even properly categorized. I want to chose what is best for my family; not be coaxed or manipulated into a decision with the threat of losing my job.
Erica Kreutzer wrote 4 months ago

AB 1993 is a great way to lose more businesses and residents if this passes. I can’t believe this is actually being considered. Just horrifying!
Amy Henson wrote 4 months ago

I don’t need the government telling me what is best for me OR my family. You want CA to fail? Then let this pass because you WILL see a big wave of people leaving CA. Stop with the over reaching and stop trying to save everyone because you are doing the opposite.

Tweets

Whip Lists

Sponsors
Votes
Looks like there aren't any voting records available at this moment.
Actions
  • Apr 18, 2022 | Assembly
    • Coauthors revised.
  • Mar 29, 2022 | Assembly
    • In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
  • Mar 17, 2022 | Assembly
    • Referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD.
  • Feb 11, 2022 | Assembly
    • From printer. May be heard in committee March 13.
  • Feb 10, 2022 | Assembly
    • Read first time. To print.