Reiss pointed out that, for example, in Connecticut, although the state’s religious composition did not change accordingly, between 2012 and 2019, the religious opt-out rate required for school vaccines increased from 1.7% to 2.7%.In California, the rate Almost quadrupled Between 1994 and 2009. As you might expect, the rising exit rate is associated with an increase in infection rates. In 2019, twenty years after measles was declared “eliminated”, the CDC Report 22 outbreaks and 1,249 cases-the highest number since 1992.
Reiss asked the question bluntly 2014 articles “First of all, people lie in order to obtain religious immunity. Second, American jurisprudence makes it very difficult to prevent such abuse.”
State legislatures can When they wrote the exemption into the law, they had already considered Christian scientists.The problem is that, legally, delisting cannot be restricted to any particular denomination, or even restricted to Organized religion.For example, in 2001, a federal judge rule The vaccine exemption in Arkansas violates the Constitution because it only applies to members of “recognized churches or religious denominations.” Arkansas responded by amending the law to allow parents to apply for a “personal belief” exemption, and 14 other states are currently following this path.Research has Established These states grant more non-medical exemptions than those that restrict them to religious requirements.
Although the language of religious opposition usually refers to someone’s “sincere beliefs”, it is understandable that judges are cautious about trying to interpret someone’s heart and thoughts. When it interacts with the cultural shift that constitutional scholar Robert Post calls “religious reformation”, this creates space for hoaxes—the growing feeling that religious doctrines are not passed down by hierarchical organizations It is not even governed by internal consistency, but a question of personal beliefs. Everyone may be a person’s religion. This is a response to the 1879 Supreme Court’s warning that “every citizen becomes his own law”.
If religious opponents in the United States do not get clues from the official doctrine, where do they get these clues? To some extent, the answer seems to be Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and the right-wing media. The result is that “religious” opposition to vaccine requirements is sometimes indistinguishable from political stance.
recent Washington post article Capture the phenomenon in detail. A pastor in Tennessee urged his “Patriot” audience to run for office to combat the restrictions of the new crown virus. Protesters at the Florida school board meeting wore shirts with “Jesus is my savior and Trump is my president” and accused the board members of being “demon entities.” A nurse led a protest against vaccination of medical workers in Pennsylvania. He asked the crowd “if they love America, freedom, the’right given by God’ and Jesus, please cheer for them.”
These are extreme situations. But they illustrate the volatility of religious immunity when the opposition to public health measures itself began to resemble a belief. In these cases, the problem is not just that people will say that their opposition is religious, when in fact they are not. They will say that their opposition is religious and serious.
When it comes to Tasks imposed by employers, Civil Rights Act of 1964 need The company provides “reasonable conveniences” based on employees’ religious beliefs, as long as they do not burden the company. As for the government, although there are federal and state religious freedom laws, there are quite a few case laws that indicate that religious immunity is not required.After the measles outbreak, the legislatures of California, New York, and Maine have recently disuse Religious exemptions from school vaccine regulations, and these repeals have been shelved in court.
But this does not mean that the current Supreme Court majority will agree that the Covid vaccine rule does not include religious opt-out. The pendulum of the religious freedom law can swing violently. Scalia’s decision in 1990 was so unpopular that the almost unanimous Congress quickly passed the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”, which restored the “rigorous review” standard of federal law.Twenty-one states have their Own version Statutory. Several conservative judges in the court advocated a complete overturn of the 1990 ruling.
So far, cases of challenging missions across the country have appeared in different ways.Federal Judge in Louisiana rule Private universities that use public facilities cannot request vaccinations. In New York, a federal judge temporarily prevented the state from enforcing its authorization for healthcare workers who raised religious objections. Other challenges have failed: most notably, a group of students sued Indiana University for the authorization of Indiana University, but Judge Amy Connie Barrett, a conservative Catholic appointed by Donald Trump, dismissed theirs. appeal. In this case, the university provides generous accommodation to allow students to be tested regularly. We still don’t know what will happen if the school tells unvaccinated students that they are not welcome on campus.
Two developments help explain why these cases are so confusing. First of all, most case law on vaccine requirements is aimed at school children. Among these school children, mandatory requirements are particularly easy to defend. Adults who choose not to vaccinate their children are taking health risks because they are too young to make their own decisions. For tasks that apply to adults, this is not the case.