On April 28, 2021 Governor Ned Lamont signed a bill that repealed Connecticut’s religious exemption vaccine law, worrying many individuals about their right to exercise religion and medical privacy. The actions of the bill will begin on September 1, 2022 where “children in pre-kindergarten, day care or those new to the school system would no longer be able to claim the exemption starting that day”; however, students K-12 will still be able to qualify for the religious exemption. We the Patriots USA and CT Freedom Alliance are two non-profit organizations that are currently suing the Board of Education, the Board of Public Health, the Office of Early Childhood Development, and three Connecticut boards of education to rescind the actions of both Governor Lamont and the Senate (22-14 vote). The bill is meant to ease the fear that highly contagious diseases like the measles will spread rapidly and severely affect children who cannot get the measles vaccine due to preexisting medical reasons. Proponents of the bill expressed that the concern stems from a low herd immunity rate amongst children. Senator Bob Duff spoke as the Senate majority leader and said, “All we're doing is closing a loophole for nonmedical exemption...people are abusing quote unquote religious exemptions for non-religious reasons only because they don't believe in health and science”. According to legislators, there are about “7,500 students claiming the religious exemption and at least 20,000 non-compliant” severely impacting herd immunity rates within Connecticut’s school districts (NBC Connecticut). The new bill is requiring children who are not yet enrolled in school to get the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.
In further support of the lawsuit, parents Constantina Lora, Miriam Hidalgo, and Asma Elidrissi believe that the new bill repealing religious exemptions for vaccines directly violates their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. These parents spoke to NBC CT and Lora is a devout Greek Othodox, Hidalgo is a devout Catholic, and Elidrissi is a devout Muslim, and all of the parents have younger children who will be affected by the new legislation. In recent years Connecticut is the sixth state to remove its religious exemption when regulating vaccines but is still upholding a medical exemption. The bill will not affect children who are in grades K-12 who already have a valid religious exemption, rather new students entering school districts in Connecticut (pre-kindergarten, day care, or switching school districts) will have to sacrifice their right to religious exercise.
In addition to the First Amendment, We the Patriots USA, CT Freedom Alliance, and Constantina Lora, Miriam Hidalgo, and Asma Elidrissi believe that eliminating religious exemptions for vaccines also violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment. The parents are frustrated that the bill lacks neutrality because only new students enrolled in Connecticut’s school districts are not granted a religious exemption, while older students are still allowed to use a religious exemption that was available before the bill was signed.
When observing the argument that parents have the right to choose whether or not their children get a vaccination on religious grounds is argued in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944). This case articulates that child protection laws, including vaccination, supersede parental religious freedom. In addition, the right to religious exercise is not absolute where a religious exemption does not permit putting other children at risk of contracting a contagious disease. Prince v. Massachusetts addresses the argument that the majority of popular religions condone vaccinations and medical intervention. On similar grounds Reynolds v. United States (1879) ruled that the state is permitted to limit religious exercise if the state is able to articulate a compelling state interest in the promotion or or preservation of health, safety, or welfare.
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) the Supreme Court articulated that religious and individual liberties are not absolute and granted states the power to impose laws regulating vaccinations. The case highlights the entanglement between states exercising power to uphold public health while respecting the Constitution. State’s obtain sovereign power to make laws to protect the health of citizens that might come at the cost of certain personal liberties. Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruled that Cambridge, Mass, Board of Health has the authority to require residents to get the smallpox vaccine during the smallpox epidemic. This case is similar to the situation brought by Governor Lamont earlier this week in response to the state of Connecticut trying to regulate its public health. The main difference between Jacobson v. Massachusetts is that the requirement for the smallpox vaccination was neutral in practice. The bill passed by Governor Lamont is not neutral because a certain population of students still have the right to a religious exemption.
Since the bill lacks neutrality I have to disagree with the decision made by the Senate and Governor Lamont. Students who are currently enrolled in K-12 can keep their right to freely exercise their religion by not getting vaccinated but students enrolling for the 2022 school year are not granted the right to a religious exemption. Reflecting back on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the law was neutral during the smallpox epidemic but the bill passed in Connecticut is not, making certain minority groups feel restricted from their right to free exercise. Also since students in K-12 do not have to get vaccinated because they are still able to use a religious exemption, it does not make the compelling state interest of herd immunity seem severe considering. If herd immunity was so important to the state of Connecticut then the bill would have been neutral, eliminating religious exemptions for all students.
No comments:
Post a Comment