On August 26th, NY
State Supreme Court Justice Denise Hartman upheld
the ban on religious exemptions to vaccinations. In her decision, she said
that she was deeply concerned over the "potential harm to unvaccinated
individuals if the injunction is granted." She went on to cite a 1944
Supreme Court decision regarding the issue, saying "The right to practice
religion does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable
disease or the latter to ill health or death." This quote is the basis of
my argument on this issue.
My interest in this topic
inspired me to learn more about the implications of this decision. Following up
on our vaccination discussion from last week, I
found a recent article (note that this is the main article I am referencing
for this response) that personalizes the issue and delves deeper into the
ongoing controversy. The piece, written by Sharon Otterman, highlights
contrasting viewpoints from different religious groups on the topic. In
addition, the article discusses opposing vaccination exemption options between
states, noting New York as the recent "no tolerance" state. Maine, on
the other hand, allows exceptions for special needs students. The article is
mostly fact-based, as Otterman attempts to stay neutral when presenting the
conflicting viewpoints. However, through multiple quotes referencing significant
school administrative and religious figures, Otterman does a fantastic job
presenting the information in a way in which the reader can formulate an
opinion for one side or the other. The main question is: can religious
exemptions be accepted as a reason to refuse vaccinations?
"Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof" is a quote from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
that we will be referencing often throughout the semester. While in essence
this clause defends actions made on behalf of certain religious beliefs, we
know that no right is absolute. Many examples in this article highlight the
detrimental aspects of permitting religious exemptions for vaccinations. The main
issue here is that religious exemptions for vaccinations can cause those who do
abide by the laws to become very sick. Furthermore, the rationality for
arguing against vaccinations is flawed.
Take the example of
Jacquelynn Vance-Pauls, a real-estate lawyer in upstate New York, who was the
reason her 14-year-old autistic son was expelled from school. While Vance-Pauls
defends her stance on vaccinations due to Christianity and the readings of the
Bible, she also states that she believes vaccines contributed to her son's
autism. Multiple studies have shown that there is no connection between
vaccines and autism. Vance-Pauls is preventing her special needs son from
receiving a proper education as well as spreading dangerous false pretenses.
I also want to take a moment
to criticize the Hasidic Jewish community, an ultra-religious group of Jewish
people who, similarly to Vance-Pauls, justify being "anti-vaccines"
from the spread of false information. As a Jew myself, despite not being
religious whatsoever, I am frustrated by the viewpoints of some Hasidic Jews as
it puts the Jewish community in a bad light. This, to me, is dangerous in times
of revamped antisemitism worldwide. In
a separate New York Times article, Hasidic Jew Moishe Kahan, an editor for
Peach magazine, said that "Vaccines contain monkey, rat and pig DNA as
well as cow-serum blood, all of which are forbidden for consumption according
to kosher dietary law." There is a significant issue with this statement.
Most notable Hasidic Rabbis agree that vaccines are kosher and consistently
urge all members of the community to get vaccinated. I hold the belief that
even if all Rabbis unanimously decided that vaccines were not kosher, those who
do keep kosher should still be required to be vaccinated. Public health and
safety should always be the number one priority of federal, state, and local
governments. This spread of dangerous misinformation is detrimental to public
health and can draw in vulnerable ultra-religious people to conform to this
idea that vaccines are harmful.
Ultimately, how could you
argue against an idea that protects the vast majority of its constituents?
"We have 5,000 students in my district," said Lorna R. Lewis, the
superintendent of the Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District in Long
Island. "If there are 10 that have hard-standing vaccine adverse parents,
I have 4,990 others whose safety I have to think about." In a democratic
society, under no circumstance should exemptions be made for such a small
percentage of people based on religion when this decision can be potentially
harmful to many. Furthermore, exemptions would cause a slippery slope for future
court decisions if a precedent was set that religion can overrule public health
concerns. Lastly, the spread of misinformation could cause vulnerable people to
become "anti-vaccines," a belief that could not only threaten the
young people of today, but also future generations as well.
5 comments:
I too support the decision of NY Supreme Court Justice Denise Hartman to uphold the ban on religious exemptions to vaccinations. The article cited here is extremely interesting, as the parents of unvaccinated children have firm religious belief that this is a matter of life and death. I find this case particular interesting as it mimics a “negative” action that occurs in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The refusal to salute the flag is identical, to an extent as the refusal to get vaccinated. However, it was found unconstitutional to compel children to salute the flag under the basis that it violated their freedom of religion. Where the two cases differ, and where I agree with Jacob is, I believe is that the refusal to vaccinate children is harmful to the rest of society.
I agree with Bess and Jacob on the Supreme Court's decision. Religious exemptions should not be made for vaccinations, even if the contents of the vaccines conflict with a specific religion's dietary restrictions. As Jacob notes, those who decide not to be vaccinated potentially expose law-abiding citizens to diseases and illnesses. Parents vaccinating their children should be able to expect that when they send their children to school, their playmates will also be vaccinated in order to prevent the spread of disease. The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, however, religious exemption in this case implies that personal beliefs are more important than striving to maintain the physical well-being of individuals in a society.
I also support the NY Supreme Court decision that does not allow religious exemptions for vaccinations. As Justice Hartman points out, the refusal of whatever grounds to vaccinate a child poses harm to both the child and potential hundreds and thousands of others that that child encounters. I do understand that this issue is somewhat complicated and could see how some could argue that a person should be able to use their religion as a reason not to vaccinate due to freedom of religion. I believe that it is a slippery slope because some cases that are similar to this one has been deemed unconstitutional like Bess mentioned in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. But the key point with the vaccination issue is that it is posing harm to others so therefore I think that the NY Supreme Court made the right decision.
I also agree with the decision to not allow religious exemptions when it comes to vaccinations. Despite the fact that there might be traces of food that is against your dietary restrictions in your religion, not vaccinating one child puts every single other child that they come in contact with, in danger. I also believe that this is considered a slippery slope as well because it can be compared to other first amendment cases, but this affects not just this one person making the decision, but the health and safety of everyone else.
I agree with Jacob’s post as well as the comments regarding the post, because this is a topic that affects millions of people nation-wide. However, I have tried to put myself in the shoes of someone who may have ultra-religious reasons for not vaccinating their children. I imagine that this religious group may feel like a minority or may feel silenced for not being allowed a religious exemption. Is it possible that this ban may push the church and state further apart? In this court decision, has the state proved to have more power?
Post a Comment