In the case of Keene vs City and County of San Francisco, Selina Keene and Melody Fountila filed a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco, as well as Mayor London Breed and Director of Human Resources, Carol Isen. On June 23, 2021, the city mandated that all of its 25,000 employees be vaccinated by no later than November 1, 2021. The plaintiffs sued on the grounds that vaccinations are derived from aborted fetuses and therefore cause a large problem in their deeply rooted Christian beliefs. Stemming from these beliefs against abortion as well as the confidence of their own immune systems, the plaintiffs refused to get vaccinated. Along with refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine, the plaintiffs also left their jobs. The questions at law are: is denying a religious exemption for a vaccination a violation of the free exercise clause? How does the fact that the COVID-19 vaccination contains aborted fetuses change affect this ruling?
As I was looking into the science behind the plaintiffs claim that COVID-19 vaccines are made from aborted fetuses, I found an explanation from James Lawler, MD, who is also a practicing Catholic. Dr. Lawler said that COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells, but fetal cell lines are cells grown in a laboratory based on aborted fetal cells were used during research and development of the mRNA vaccines, and during production of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. The defendants stated that there are no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines contain fetal cells or are otherwise derived from murdered babies. A majority of the plaintiffs' argument was based off of the grounds that the vaccines came from aborted fetal cells, and they were proved to be false claims by the FDA helping the defendant's argument. The plaintiffs' could have been better off arguing that the fetal cell lines were still against their religious views.
When looking at a case of employers being forced for vaccination, I find similarities and differences in the case Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union vs Baker. In this case, the correctional officers are being required to get a COVID-19 vaccine to prevent the spread of the virus to the inmates. This case came up with a ruling that balancing that harm against the legitimate and critical public health interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19 by mandating the employees to be vaccinated, the Court finds the balance sides with the greater public good. The effort to maintain greater good interpretation in that case helps the defendants in this case. I see the parallels to my first blog post, where there was a compelling state interest to protect the greater good.
Although I saw parallels to my first blog post about military men to correctional officers, I have to disagree with this logic in the particular case of Keene vs City and County of San Francisco. In the cases of military men and correctional officers, there is a higher compelling state interest as the scenery of the military and correctional facilities are unique. In the military, it is often that men and women are in nations where there are infectious diseases and they are sleeping in close quarters. This is very similar to correctional offices where inmates have a confined living space and are able to spread diseases at higher rates. I see a difference in the plaintiffs' argument, as they are city workers. They have the opportunity to go home and live in their own confined space. While I acknowledge the argument for the greater compelling interest of national safety, I feel as if Keene and Fountila should not have to sacrifice their religious beliefs in a scenario of lower magnitude. This belief is different in my stance from my first blog post, where I argued against the plaintiffs' exemption, as in my second blog post I do not feel as if the compelling state interest is as strong. A question I have at the end of seeing the Court side with the defendants' is: was the plaintiffs' incorrect terminology about aborted fetal cells as opposed to fetal cell lines what lost them the case?
WORKS CITED
Hillman, D. (2021, October 15). Mass.. corr. officers federated union V. Baker. Legal research tools from Casetext. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://casetext.com/case/mass-corr-officers-federated-union-v-baker
Northern District of California US federal District Court case law. Justia Law. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/
Oregon Legislative Information System. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz
Person. (2021, August 19). You asked, we answered: Do the COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted fetal cells? Nebraska Medicine. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-do-the-covid-19-vaccines-contain-aborted-fetal-cells
Walley, A. M. (n.d.). Tampa Judge Grants 2 Military Members COVID-19 Exemption for Religious Purposes. blogger.com.
Wow! This was truly so interesting to read. I am conflicted as to whether or not I agree with the argument. In this case, Keene and Fountila's refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine. They claim that it goes against their religious beliefs, but their beliefs go directly against what science says. Their logic just does not seem to add up. When you look at the science, Dr. Lawler (also a practicing catholic) states that COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells. Rather fetal cell lines are cells grown in a laboratory based around aborted fetal cells which were used during the research and development of the mRNA vaccines and during the production of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Overall, I agree that the plaintiffs should not have to sacrifice their religious beliefs, even though their beliefs are in stark contrast to proven physically science.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting blog post. Based on the argument made by Keene and Fountilla, I do not believe that requiring them to be vaccinated infringes upon their right to freely exercise their religion. I do believe that there may be situations where religious exemptions should be granted to people who believe being vaccinated infringes upon their religious beliefs. However, based on the scientific data that vaccinations are not derived from aborted fetus cells, but instead cell lines in the vaccine are grown based off of aborted fetus cells, their argument is not valid in my opinion. There is no direct relation between aborted fetuses’ being in the vaccine, therefore being vaccinated does not directly involve aborted fetus cells being injected into someone's body. Also, when thinking about belief and action, the way the vaccine is formed might go against their religious beliefs, however being vaccinated does not prohibit them from freely exercising their religion. This is a very interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting case indeed. The argument here is that the plaintiffs don’t believe they should be mandated to get vaccinated due to religious beliefs. The basis of an accommodation or exemption relies on the grounds that whatever the case is, is forcing them to violate their religious beliefs. In this case their ability to exercise their religion is not being infringed upon and the very basis of their argument is false. Proving that the grounds their wish to seek exemption upon is false therefore means that they are not being forced to violate an aspect of their religion. As for the argument that this doesn’t provide enough state interest, doesn’t the need to keep everyone safe and healthy and alive provide a large enough interest? We have many vaccines that are mandated such as polio, meningitis, HPV and more to ensure that people are protected against those diseases. And doesn’t the need to protect against close quarters also apply to work spaces? Spending 8 or more hours in an office space is considered a high transmission area. The basis of exemption is founded on the grounds that someone's religious freedoms are being violated and if their argument provided evidence that an aspect of their beliefs were being violated then I agree an exception should be granted. But in this case I agree that the need for state interest coupled with the fact that the grounds of their arguments are proven false, they shouldn't be granted an exception.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that being required to get vaccinated is a violation of their first amendment rights. This is not a substantial burden on them because the vaccines are not made with the cells of aborted fetuses. Thus this does not conflict with their religious beliefs of being against abortion. This is also a neutral policy and everyone has to get vaccinated. They are not being targeted for their beliefs. I would question their sincerity here as well. If they were really against the vaccination for religious regions, they would likely look into how the vaccine is made a bit deeper, considering it is not made with aborted fetus cells.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there was a violation of the first amendment free exercise and even the 14th amendment equal protection of the law by failing to accommodate the workers to their needs. These workers have a religion that science does not understand, I think it is extremely exclusive to allow only some people to be allowed to work because they do not mind the vaccine. It is also unfair for people who are practicing Christians to speak on the behalf of every practicing Christian. In this case the city is forcing vaccines on religious people to the point where there is prejudice against, in this case, Christians. I also think that for San Fransisco, a so called inclusive and open minded city, to be failing to accommodate is hypocritical. The case here focuses on the perspective of other Christians who do not mind the vaccine rather than those who do believe that these vaccines contain fetus cells, basically establishing if they can get the vaccine so can you.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post! I am conflicted about which way I stand. I do see how requiring the vaccine can be a violation of the first and fourteenth amendments. With Christian beliefs, forcing one to place aborted fetus cells in their body when it truly conflicts with their beliefs is a violation and a substantial burden. The science, though, states that they did not place aborted fetal cells inside the vaccines, they just were surrounded by them in their studies. On the other hand, this is a very strong compelling state interest. COVID is a fast pace killing disease that has killed countless people within just the United States. If these workers were in a space where they had closer connections to people in severe danger of COVID (a hospital), then would this case have turned out differently? I think, ultimately though, this is a violation of religious rights because of the force of placing a vaccine inside ones body.
ReplyDelete