On Thursday, November 12th, 2020 a group of Massachusetts parents decided to sue Governor Charlie Baker saying that Governor Baker’s influenza vaccine mandate for all students older than 6 months and younger than 30 infringes on their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and their general right to parent their children how they see fit. Governor Baker and the state of Massachusetts argues that requiring all students to receive the flu vaccine will release the strain on the healthcare system to combat both a surge in flu cases and a potential surge in coronavirus cases in the winter months. The vaccine mandate does not apply to students who are typically homeschooled but does apply to all students regardless of their choice to continue their education remotely or in person. The parents argue that the flu shot Governor Baker is requiring their students to receive does not actually lower the chances of their student contracting coronavirus or spreading it to other students. They also argue that the vaccine could in fact increase the chance that their children will contract coronavirus because the vaccine would weaken their immune systems. In the complaint filed, the parents do not specifically cite which religious beliefs were violated by the vaccine mandate which may present an issue in determining whether or not they even have standing to bring a suit against the Governor.
In the suit, the parents acknowledge that Governor Baker and the will most likely cite the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (which is ironic because the same issue is being presented in Massachusetts 115 years later). In Jacobson, the government upheld a fine against a Cambridge minister who refused a smallpox vaccine for his son and himself citing religious concerns during the Smallpox epidemic. In the Jacobson ruling, the court held that “[I[n every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand”. In this case, Governor Baker is mandating Massachusetts citizens to receive the flu vaccine because he thinks it is the best way to protect the safety of all state residents and alleviate the burden on an already strained healthcare system. In their complaint, the court uses the circumstances in Jacobson to explain why the current COVID-19 pandemic and the Smallpox epidemic are not the same. In the complaint, they write “Jacobson involved compulsory vaccination in the midst of a smallpox epidemic when there were no other less coercive means available to staunch the outbreak. In this situation, the court believed at that time that a vaccination was a medical necessity to combat the disease. Compare this to vaccinations for sexually transmitted diseases like HPV- a compulsory vaccination is not a medical necessity because individuals can protect themselves through some combination of sexual knowledge, disease screening, safe sex, and abstinence. Likewise, a compulsory flu vaccine is also not a medical necessity, nor has the flu vaccine, which has been around for decades, ever been considered medically necessary”. Presumably, they are arguing that a combination of social distancing and wearing masks is more effective than receiving the flu vaccine and that there is no proven medical necessity in mandating the flu vaccine to stop the spread of COVID-19. They argue that the mandatory vaccination places an unnecessary burden on their rights to free religious exercise amongst other rights such as privacy (in the relationship between parent and child), and a Massachusetts state constitutional right to education.
Personally, my primary concern is that the group of parents does not even have the standing to bring a suit against a governor. Though they cite “religious concerns” they don’t actually point to anyone religion whose values were compromised by the vaccine mandate. Even if we were to presume that the group of parents does have standing, I completely agree with the ruling in Jacobson there are certain circumstances in which the government must intervene in order to protect the general well-being of students, parents, and overall citizens of the state. The mandatory vaccine policy is both facially neutral and neutral in practice. The only group that is not required to receive the vaccine is the one least likely to interact with students outside of the home. This has a logical reason behind it and therefore the neutrality of the policy still stands. We’ve seen in many of the other cases that the Court grants wide deference to states when the primary interest is in protecting citizens. In my opinion, the free exercise rights of the parents were not violated nor were any of the other rights cited in their complaint. I am curious to see if anyone else thinks the parents have a valid claim or if they should go along with the state’s plans to preserve the health and integrity of the healthcare system.
7 comments:
Jerra, you make some great points. Firstly, I think that if the parents cite any religious beliefs that have been violated then that may potentially change the course of this case. However, I do not believe that their concerns can constitute as sincere religious beliefs for now because of the vagueness of their statement which can definitely present a problem, as you mentioned. I believe that if they have proof to back-up their statement that the vaccine does not lower the chances of contracting or spreading COVID-19 and that it weakens the immune system, then that would also change the course of the case as well. As for where the case stands now, I believe that the state's mandates bar their religious rights for the sole purpose of prioritizing the public health and the already overworked healthcare system.
Had the parents in this case filed a suit bringing up their specific religious beliefs that were being infringed upon, I might be more convinced to agree with their complaint. However, I agree with the points you make, Jerra, that the fact that the claims of these parents are so vague is questionable, and shouldn't be used as a basis to determine that their free exercise was infringed upon. I also believe that in this case, like in the Jacobson case, there is a very compelling state interest to protect public health, especially amid the rise of the coronavirus pandemic. The mandate from Governor Charlie Baker is not in any way targeting religious groups either, making this law both facially and actually neutral in practice as Jerra pointed out. Overall I do not see any real burden or infringement on free exercise in this case.
Jerra, I am unable to find a single flaw within this reasoning. As you mentioned, these parents do not have a specific religion/religious values to cite. If the court allowed this to go through without a specific pillar of religion to back it up, it would be a slippery slope for other individuals who will claim in the future that something goes against their "religious beliefs". Furthermore, saying that the state is infringing on their right to decide how to parent is not an argument that overrides protecting the rest of the community via herd immunity. During a global pandemic that has had major repercussions on society as we know it, now is certainly not the time to let a lawsuit like this slide. Ultimately, I agree that this law is facially and actually neutral in practice, and these parents must be denied for the health of the community.
Jerra, you make an extremely compelling argument that I can agree with. Your one point that the parents who want to bring a lawsuit do not even have a specific religion who had values compromised was an extremely strong point. This case would have to be considered with more sincerity if the parents had cited their own religious values being compromised, for example. There is no certainty in their arguments and they are based on vague beliefs that are not backed up with valid concerns. Jacobson v. Massachusetts is a fair precedent to compare to this case because though the parents deny the similarities of circumstances of Smallpox and COVID-19, the facts of both pandemics have led to resurgences that require the government to take quick action, such as by the mandate of the vaccine.
I agree with Jerra and her concerns over the lack of religious reasoning provided by the parents in this case. The lack of clarity about what religious beliefs they see as being compromised severely undermines their argument. I personally agree with you and the other commenters that the state interest to control the pandemic is compelling and Governor Baker's mandate is neutral; putting that aside, I can see a strong argument being made that there are less restrictive means to do so, given the traditional medical necessity of influenza vaccines, as you mentioned in your post.
It will be especially interesting to see how this case plays out as we get closer to the potential release of a Covid vaccine. Jacobson v. Massachusetts and this case may be especially prevalent as America debates if and how Covid vaccines could/should be required given that huge portions of Americans have indicated resistance to eventually taking the vaccine when it is developed.
I think your arguments here are pretty much foolproof. Firstly, requiring a vaccine is in line with an overriding government interest in public health, and therefore is completely facially neutral. Secondly, there's no specific religious violations regarding vaccines. In what Christian religious text does it say that vaccines are contrary to their practice? Most religions were not created during a time in which vaccines even existed, and while some religious sects are possibly eligible for a religious exemption, the general position of, say the Catholic or Baptist churches, are not anti-vax. While individual convictions may exist, it is not the government's job to defer to every individual when in a public health crisis and trying to create a herd immunity, something entirely dependent on everyone buying in.
I also agree with Jerra that in instances such as the COVID-19 pandemic individual rights sometimes have to be violated, such as forced vaccinations, for the protection of the community. I discussed this topic a lot last semester in my Sociology of Medicine course. We extensively discussed the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case as both a precident and as part of a question of if a community, similarly to an individual, has the right to protect themselves from something such as a deadly contagious disease. To me, the core of this case is if an individuals right to not comply with a mandate, even if it is for religious reasons, supersedes the community right to protect itself. This idea is not unique to deadly diseases either. In times of war, men can be forced into military service even if it goes against their religious beliefs because as a society we have decided the need of the community to protect itself is more important than the individual right to not comply. I do think this is something we should be cautious about because it could very easily lead to a slippery slope, but as of now I agree the right of the community to protect itself in times of necessity is more important because the continued existence of the community is a prerequisite for individual rights.
Post a Comment