One island of reason in the typhoon of anti-vax nonsense:
In a case weighing the government’s ability to require vaccination against the individual right to refuse it, a federal judge has upheld a New York City policy that bars unimmunized children from public school when another student has a vaccine-preventable disease.
Citing a 109-year-old Supreme Court ruling that gives states broad power in public health matters, Judge William F. Kuntz II of Federal District Court in Brooklyn ruled against three families who claimed that their right to free exercise of religion was violated when their children were kept from school, sometimes for a month at a time, because of the city’s immunization policies.
I’ve said it before – I hate the free exercise clause.
Amid concerns by public health officials that some diseases are experiencing a resurgence in areas with low vaccination rates, the decision reinforces efforts by the city to balance a strict vaccine mandate with limited exemptions for objectors. Pockets of vaccination refusal persist in the city, despite high levels of vaccination overall.
State law requires children to receive vaccinations before attending school, unless a parent can show religious reservations or a doctor can attest that vaccines will harm the child. Under state law, parents claiming religious exemptions do not have to prove their faith opposes vaccines, but they must provide a written explanation of a “genuine and sincere” religious objection, which school officials can accept or reject.
That’s like demanding a religious exemption from laws and policies that forbid murder or assault.
The third plaintiff, Dina Check, sued on somewhat different grounds, saying that the city had improperly denied her 7-year-old daughter a religious exemption. She said the city rejected her religious exemption after it had denied her a medical exemption, sowing doubts among administrators about the authenticity of her religious opposition. But Ms. Check said the request for a medical exemption had been mistakenly submitted by a school nurse without her consent.
After the school barred her daughter, Ms. Check home-schooled her and then moved her to a private school that accepted her daughter without the vaccinations. State vaccination requirements cover public and private schools, but in New York City, private schools have more autonomy in handling exemptions.
That is, private schools have more autonomy to let students catch deadly diseases.
Ms. Check said she rejected vaccination after her daughter was “intoxicated” by a few shots during infancy, which she said caused an onslaught of food and milk allergies, rashes and infections. Combined with a religious revelation she had during the difficult pregnancy, she said, the experience turned her away from medicine. Now she uses holistic treatments.
“Disease is pestilence,” Ms. Check said, “and pestilence is from the devil. The devil is germs and disease, which is cancer and any of those things that can take you down. But if you trust in the Lord, these things cannot come near you.”
Go live on a remote island somewhere.
I never see why a religious objection to something should count more than any other objection, I mean, why does it matter more than “I just don’t feel like it?” If “I don’t feel like it” wouldn’t work, a religious objection shouldn’t.
So when Ms Check comes down with appendicitis does she have her minister pray over her? When that doesn’t work does she have her neighborhood witch doctor shake a rattle to chase away the devil?
I’ve never understood why “objections” are okay either. There are some valid reasons for not vaccinating but they are medical in nature not just “I don wanna”.
My youngest didn’t get the pertussis vaccine after the second one because he got a mild case of whooping cough after the first one (it only lasted a couple of days and I didn’t know what it was). After the second one he had a worse case. This time it was several days and my mother in law told me what it was. When we in for the next set the doctor listened to me , said it sounded like my mother in law made the right diagnosis and from now he would only get the dT. Fortunately herd immunity was good in the early 80’s.
No, I just get to benefit from other people’s vaccinations, if I’m not unlucky.
There are exactly two valid reasons to not vaccinate: allergy to a component (like eggs), or immunosuppresion.
Anything else is just empty excuses.
Free Exercise isn’t unlimited, either — Rastafarians are prohibited, by federal law, from their sacraments.
I think not vaccinating your kids is a dumb idea. But.. let’s not get too upset about the Free Exercise clause.
I think the parallel with asking to be exempted from laws about murder and assault is a bit overblown. There is a bit of a difference between laws that prohibit you from doing X (murder, assault) and laws that compel one to do X (say, buying car insurance so you can drive). It’s a complex dance you have to do.
As an ethical matter, I don’t think you’d all be for forcing a medical procedure on anyone that wasn’t an emergency situation. This is one of those cases where bodily autonomy bumps up against a real public health issue.
I’d be interested to read the legal reasoning more closely. For my part there’s the specific issue of this particular parent (I think she’s nuts) and the general issue of how to handle cases like this and how to write laws and regulations.
@WMD Kitty — Rastafarians can’t smoke weed (at least not under Federal law — I don’t know what wold happen in Colorado now) but the the Native American Church was able to work out an accommodation back in the 70s or 80s I think.
Obviously the Free Exercise clause wouldn’t apply to human sacrifice or something, but there’s plenty of exceptions already worked in — they don’t arrest every Catholic family on Sunday for violating the under-21 booze laws, nor every Jewish Family on Passover for the same thing.
@6…only the priest drinks the wine during a Catholic mass. Some Protestant denominations give wine during communion–some only grape juice. Some don’t do that whole thing at all; at least not routinely.
/thread derail.
As to the main point, a religious objection to vaccination should be accompanied by a statement from that family’s church headquarters. Along with a statement from the local pastor that the family is indeed a member of that church.
What is the “official” position of that person’s church on the matter? That’s what should govern; not some crazy lady spouting nonsense about the devil.
AFAIK, of the major denominations, only the Christian Scientists are specifically anti-vax. Maybe the Jehovah’s Witnesses (can’t be arsed to look it up). Of course, there are loony-tune one-off churches that believe any darn thing you can think of (which is evidence that all religion is made-up bullshit).
That would favour people who have churches. You don’t have to belong to a group to have a religion.
I’ve said it before – I hate the free exercise clause.
+1
@Jesse
Unless you(or the courts) are willing to be an arbiter of religion and what exactly “free exercise” entails the free exercise clause sucks. Don’t take easy examples like murder – take examples like the latter day saints grooming young teens to become spiritual wives for some fucked up old men. Or the ridiculously low marriageable age in Islam.
As an ethical matter, I don’t think you’d all be for forcing a medical procedure on anyone that wasn’t an emergency situation.
a. vaccination does impact other people , not just the person being vaccinated.
b. The person taking the decision is different from the person being vaccinated
Both of the above have ethical implications for your “forcing” medical procedures.
@7, depends on the church. A lot of Catholic churches go for “communion” in “both species.” (I’m using the “technical” Catholic terms, because I like “scary quotes”). In fact, looking back upon my terribly misspent youth, I can only recall a handful of churches where this wasn’t the norm by 2000.
The Eastern Orthodox churches have a similar practice which involves dipped bread into wine and spooning that into your mouth.
So, yes, they all skirt the “no boozing for kids” laws.
their right to free exercise of religion was violated
I guess you could make a case that deliberately exposing your kid to possibly-fatal diseases is protected the way way as snake-handling is…but I kind of doubt the law allows kids to do that…
only the priest drinks the wine during a Catholic mass.
Some parishes have the congregants drink wine as well as chew the wafer.
Since the second Vatican Council it has been at the discretion of the local bishop whether the congregation gets to drink some of the wine. Before that the Council of Trent had forbidden anyone except the celebrant(s) to do so.
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/#footnote-26299-29
Kevin Kehres
Nope. It’s not just the priest that drinks the wine during communion. I was raised Catholic, so, uh… I’d know.
Was communion wine banned during Prohibition?