Choosing Between Religious Beliefs and Public Health Vaccinations

Although NY State previously allowed religious exemptions from mandated vaccinations, in June 2019, the state overturned these exemptions for the measles vaccination because of the outbreak nationwide. In 2019, there was the greatest amount of cases reported since 1994 in the US and since it was declared as eliminated in 2000. Most of these new cases were concentrated in Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish communities and have been somewhat attributed to unvaccinated travelers who often move back and forth between Israel and the US. After the measles outbreak in 2019, in order for a child between the ages of 6 months and 18 years to enter any place of public assembly, NY declared they had to be vaccinated against measles unless they had a medical exemption. In W.D. v. Rockland County, the plaintiffs included adult residents of Rockland County, a suburb of New York City, whose children were enrolled in two private schools in the county. This group of plaintiffs filed this complaint because their children were excluded from attending school because they had not been vaccinated for religious reasons. The children are members of Orthodox communities who have a history of opposing vaccinations. These communities are often suspicious of outsiders, often including non-Jewish health officials, and many often lack access to the internet to do research on their own. Furthermore, these communities have been influenced by their rabbis who impose fear and danger of vaccines. Since these families have religious justifications against vaccinations, their children are unprotected from measles. Once they were excluded from schools, the plaintiffs argued that the mandate “substantially burdened their religious beliefs by forcing them “to either engage in acts prohibited by their faith, that is, vaccinate, or lose state-created rights,” including the right to a public education.” However, the NY federal district court dismissed the challenges because it served the legitimate purpose of protecting the community from the measles outbreak. 

In regards to religion and constitutional law, this case ought to be looked at if the vaccination mandate imposes a burden on the free exercise of the plaintiffs religion and if so, is there a compelling state interest that justifies the substantial infringement of their constitutional rights Sherbert v. Verner (1963). It is clear that requiring the families to vaccinate their children even though it is against their religion is a substantial burden. Families are then forced to choose between going against their religious beliefs or restricting their children from attending school and other public places. However, the freedom of religion does not relieve an individual to not comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law prescribes (or proscribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)” United States v. Lee (1982). This mandate is generally applicable because it imposes a burden on both religious and non-religious groups to be vaccinated for measles. This law does not solely impose a burden on religious groups alone. Furthermore this law is content neutral because it is not directed at a religious practice specifically. Although it may impact the Orthodox and Hasicidic Jewish communities more than others because more members of that community are not vaccinated, the law is applicable to all members of New York and is content neutral in its application.

While the mandate imposed a significant burden on the Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish community, the state’s interest justified the burden. In this area of constitutional area, “only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasions for permissible limitation” Thomas v. Collins (1945). In this present case, the mandate served a legitimate government purpose of keeping the state safe and protecting them from the measles outbreak. The outbreak was a clear and present danger because the disease can be deadly, cause other health complications, and is one of the most highly communicable infections. In order to mitigate the spreading of measles, the state had to act to prevent the outbreak. It is therefore in the state’s legitimate and substantial interest to prohibit those who are not vaccinated from attending school and other public forums. Furthermore, a “man has no right in opposition to his social duties...or subversive of good order” even if it opposes their religious beliefs Reynolds v. United States (1879). It is an individual’s social duty to be vaccinated to prevent disorder and necessary to protect public health and safety.

Although the Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish plaintiffs are substantially burdened by NYs vaccination declaration and they are being forced to choose between their religious beliefs or lose state created rights, I agree with the NY federal district court to dismiss the plaintiff’s challenges because the law was generally applicable, neutral, and the state had a substantial interest in requiring children to be vaccinated. This issue will likely soon become more relevant as the COVID vaccine becomes more available to a greater amount of the population and if it becomes a requirement for students to receive in order to attend school