The End of the Religious Exemption for Vaccinations in Connecticut

         Just last week Connecticut introduced a new law that was signed by the governor which will no longer allow parents to not vaccinate their children in the name of a religious exemption. Up until this point parents could choose to not vaccinate their children and still send them to schools, colleges, and daycare facilities. The law will requir
e parents to have their children receive all state recommended vaccinations, will aid those who cannot afford them at the expense of the state, and will create a board that will oversee and provide recommendations to the state vaccine plan. The law will remove the option of a religious exemption September 1st 2022 but will still allow those who are in kindergarten through 12th grade to remain exempt through the remainder of their time at school if they have already chosen to do so. This new law is not unprecedented as California, New York, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Maine are the other states that do not allow a religious exemption for the vaccination of schoolchildren. Proponents of this law argue that it simply ensures the safety of children by mandating that all of them be vaccinated and that there is a clear governmental interest in maintaining the health and safety of the children within the state. However, many see this law to be extremely problematic and a direct violation of their first amendment rights. Many citizens rallied outside of the State Capitol building to express their anger with the passing of the law and formally two nonprofit groups, The Patriots USA and the CT Freedom Alliance, filed lawsuits on the behalf of three parents. These three parents are all in opposition to the law for religious reasons and, interestingly enough, all follow separate religions.

Clearly this issue is one of the free exercise of religion as both the nonprofit institutions that are filing the lawsuit and the parents behind it, see this new law as a violation of their free exercise. The parents are arguing that they cannot exercise their strongly held beliefs by being forced to vaccinate their children, they also note how it is unfair and discriminatory that those who have children in kindergarten through 12th grade will be allowed to continue to not vaccinate their children if they have already previously chosen to do so. The state's main argument for this law is the state interest in mandating vaccination. Although this case is particularly unique we see precedents in cases like O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz and Golman v. Weinburger where a state interest in a unique setting overrode the free exercise of certain people. In these cases the fact that plaintiffs were in the military or prison convinced the court that things must be treated differently. For this Connecticut law it is only mandated that school children are vaccinated as they are in a unique setting compared to those who aren't. Thus, it is feasible that this case will be decided in favor of the state in light of the clear compelling interest of maintaining the safety and health of all those within the school system.

        I personally think that the state of Connecticut has made the right decision in removing the religious exemption option and that this new law is not unconstitutional. Ensuring all students are vaccinated is most clearly an interest of the state as increased rates of preventable disease would have a widespread burden on many people. Even though the plaintiffs are arguing that choosing to not get vaccinated is a choice that impacts their children, in reality it impacts everyone in the community as they may become infected and spread disease, even to someone who is vaccinated. Further, the law has also vowed to aid those who cannot afford the vaccines and create a board that will oversee and help in maintaining an appropriate vaccination program. Thus, it is not as if this law would financially burden any parents and there is clear scrutiny going into the program to make it safe and reasonable. The state interest to mandate vaccination is significant and we have seen that in settings that are part of the public sphere, like schools, the state can require things that may place an indirect or minimal burden on the rights of individuals. I do not see anything unconstitutional with this new law and it is now clearer than ever that maintaining the safety and health of the public is of utmost importance. Placing a burden on the free exercise rights of these parents is something that is justified by a clear and reasonable state interest.