3 ms·

I'm interested to learn about the case law about this as it pertains to the constitutionality of disallowing a religious exemption. Some common vaccines are de

by jawns 11y ago

I'm interested to learn about the case law about this as it pertains to the constitutionality of disallowing a religious exemption. Some common vaccines are derived from human fetal cell lines, and those fetal cell lines are themselves derived from a handful of elective abortions. For many of those vaccines, there are alternatives that are not derived from human fetal cell lines, but not all. Several religious denominations that oppose abortion, e.g. the Catholic Church, have addressed this issue and said that such vaccines can and should be used, so long as there is no reasonable alternative and there is a proportionate reason. (The Church's reasoning, in case you're curious, is that the vaccines' connection to abortion is considered remote cooperation.) But even though some denominations see the vaccines as permissible, I suppose it might be possible for a person, motivated by religious belief, to be completely on board with the efficacy of the vaccine but oppose how it was created on moral grounds, and so demand a religious exemption. Typically in the U.S., religious beliefs must be reasonably accommodated. I would think that someone who objects to the vaccine mandate on religious grounds could make the argument that if it is possible for anyone to be accommodated (in this case, those with medical issues), then accommodation itself should be considered reasonable, and it's just a matter of determining whether accommodating both is so risky as to be unreasonable. In other words, if we're willing to assume X amount of risk by allowing medical exemptions, then it follows that at least some risk can be tolerated. And if a religious objector can show that additionally assuming Y risk by allowing religious objections is not substantially more risky, then I think they could make the case that it should be considered reasonable to also accommodate religious beliefs.

tedunangst 11y ago
The medical exemption exists because giving them the vaccine increases risk (to the recipient). It's not a choice regarding acceptable risk; it's consistently choosing the least risky option.
rlpb 11y ago
Permitting a small number of exemptions does not compromise hive immunity. Permitting a large number of exceptions does. The article states an objective example of where hive immunity was compromised due to a lack of vaccination. So there is sound scientific reasoning for disallowing religious exemption for public health reasons. In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered"). It might even be reasonable to permit a small quota of religious objections, so that the total number of exceptions does not compromise hive immunity. But then how would it be decided which children would not be permitted in this group? The other option would be to simply ban children not vaccinated for religious reasons from the ability to spread disease by excluding them from schools. This seems to be the proposition made already though: > "I am concerned about opportunities for equal education," because unvaccinated kindergarteners would require home schooling, Bates said.
- jawns 11y ago
  > In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered"). It's true that a child immunized against a religious objection won't be physically harmed, but I think that many people who have been forced to do things against their religious objections will tell you that the emotional harm of being forced to violate their religious beliefs is substantial. (Which is why there have been numerous cases throughout history of people who have died rather than violate their faith.) I know comparing physical harm to emotional harm is hard to do, but I think it's worth pointing out that the "what's the harm?" argument requires a more nuanced understanding of what both sides feel is at stake than is typically considered.
__z 11y ago
>I'm interested to learn about the case law about this as it pertains to the constitutionality of disallowing a religious exemption. It has held up in court in Mississippi http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/30/mississippi-yes-mississippi-has-the-nations-best-child-vaccination-rate-heres-why/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/30/m... >But attempts to add a religious excuse there have failed. In 1979, the Mississippi Supreme Court wrote a strongly worded defense of the state program, “Is it mandated by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that innocent children, too young to decide for themselves, are to be denied the protection against crippling and death that immunization provides because of a religious belief adhered to by a parent or parents?” Religious practices aren't covered by the Constitution once they start causing death to others. Human sacrifice may be a religious practice but it is one that wouldn't be allowed to be practiced.

by jawns 11y ago

tedunangst 11y ago

The medical exemption exists because giving them the vaccine increases risk (to the recipient). It's not a choice regarding acceptable risk; it's consistently choosing the least risky option.

rlpb 11y ago

Permitting a small number of exemptions does not compromise hive immunity. Permitting a large number of exceptions does. The article states an objective example of where hive immunity was compromised due to a lack of vaccination. So there is sound scientific reasoning for disallowing religious exemption for public health reasons. In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered"). It might even be reasonable to permit a small quota of religious objections, so that the total number of exceptions does not compromise hive immunity. But then how would it be decided which children would not be permitted in this group? The other option would be to simply ban children not vaccinated for religious reasons from the ability to spread disease by excluding them from schools. This seems to be the proposition made already though: > "I am concerned about opportunities for equal education," because unvaccinated kindergarteners would require home schooling, Bates said.

jawns 11y ago
> In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered"). It's true that a child immunized against a religious objection won't be physically harmed, but I think that many people who have been forced to do things against their religious objections will tell you that the emotional harm of being forced to violate their religious beliefs is substantial. (Which is why there have been numerous cases throughout history of people who have died rather than violate their faith.) I know comparing physical harm to emotional harm is hard to do, but I think it's worth pointing out that the "what's the harm?" argument requires a more nuanced understanding of what both sides feel is at stake than is typically considered.

__z 11y ago

>I'm interested to learn about the case law about this as it pertains to the constitutionality of disallowing a religious exemption. It has held up in court in Mississippi http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/30/mississippi-yes-mississippi-has-the-nations-best-child-vaccination-rate-heres-why/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/30/m... >But attempts to add a religious excuse there have failed. In 1979, the Mississippi Supreme Court wrote a strongly worded defense of the state program, “Is it mandated by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that innocent children, too young to decide for themselves, are to be denied the protection against crippling and death that immunization provides because of a religious belief adhered to by a parent or parents?” Religious practices aren't covered by the Constitution once they start causing death to others. Human sacrifice may be a religious practice but it is one that wouldn't be allowed to be practiced.