Connecticut Repeals Religious Exemption from Immunization Rules

Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) reports:

Yesterday Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed HB 6423 (full text) which eliminates the previously available religious exemption from the state's immunization requirements for school children. However, the new law allows children who have previously been granted a religious exemption to maintain the exemption, with certain exceptions for grade-school children.

Comments

[AtR]

What could possibly be the underpinning logic? For COVID, there is no evidence that vaccinating children will help with the disease's transmission. The same is true for various other diseases (e.g., tetanus or flu).

What gives the state the power to enforce arbitrary invasive medical interventions on the most vulnerable members of society?

[John F. Carr]

COVID is the crisis that is not going to waste. In recent years there has been a movement to end religious exemptions because the Internet is leading to more vaccine refusal. Measles is the main vaccine where a high vaccination rate is important. Most diseases, like the flu or COVID-19, will spread about the same whether 1% or 5% don't get a shot.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"What gives the state the power to enforce arbitrary invasive medical interventions on the most vulnerable members of society?"

Because fuck you, that's why.

[Pettifogger]

We all do value such reasoned and articulate arguments.

[Queen Amalthea]

"A single dose of a coronavirus vaccine can reduce transmission within a household by up to half, a study by Public Health England has found.

People who do become infected with the coronavirus three weeks after receiving a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca-University of Oxford vaccine were between 38% and 49% less likely to pass the virus on to their household contacts than those who were unvaccinated, the PHE study found."
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/28/coronavirus-single-dose-of-vaccine-can-almost-halve-transmission.html

[M L]

Nothing gives the state this power, it is taken.

The power to enforce arbitrary interventions and to control people's bodies is the end, not the means.

People who enable totalitarianism imagine it will not only further public health but usher in a whole utopia and fix whatever problem. But the pretexts are always ludicrous. They believe it because they deeply need to believe it.

[Queen Amalthea]

Hyperbole. It's just a shot dude.

[Snorkle]

> and to control people’s bodies is the end, not the means

Given the number of Qvangelical anti-vaccers who are also anti-choice, I'm pretty sure they are intimately familiar with this line of thought; they just want to be on the handle-end of the whip.

[bernard11]

The statute covers all standard childhood vaccinations.

Each local or regional board of education, or similar body 3 governing a nonpublic school or schools, shall require each child to be 4 protected by adequate immunization against diphtheria, pertussis, 5 tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella, [hemophilus] 6 haemophilus influenzae type B and any other vaccine required by the 7 schedule for active immunization adopted pursuant to section 19a-7f

It's not about Covid specifically.

[John F. Carr]

The law also requires insurance to pay for "a twenty-minute consultation" with "a health care provider authorized to administer" recommended vaccines. I think that means a nurse or pharmacist who doesn't know anything about immunology.

[Libertymike]

Don't forget the MDs who know nothing about immunology.

[bernard11]

That's OK. Lots of immunology experts on the Internet.

[Commenter_XY]

The law applies to public, and non-public schools. I can see public schools....but is it legal to compel non-public school students to vaccinate? To me, that seems a much dicier proposition.

[KCar]

Also, another reason the money must be allowed to follow the child. If not then only 'rich' parents can opt out.

[Josh R]

What law or constitutional provision would prevent its application?

[Milhouse]

Under the previous law non-public schools were compelled to admit unvaccinated children if the parents claimed a "religious exemption". Ludicrously, this included religious schools whose religion (like most) has no problem with vaccination. I recall one school arguing that "If you belong to some religion that forbids vaccination then your child has no place here anyway". Repealing the exception allows the schools to enforce their own pro-vaccination policies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would expect to learn this legislation does not compel vaccination but instead requires proof of vaccination (or a damned good reason for avoiding vaccination) in connection with school enrollment or similar contexts.

I understand, largely by reliance on informed and educated persons, vaccinations to be important and effective in many circumstances. Those who attempt to advance contrary positions tend to be quite unpersuasive at best.

[KCar]

My body, my choice.

[Pettifogger]

Exactly.

[Queen Amalthea]

Uh, that slogan isn't used when your body affects other persons.

[DWB]

Like babies ...

[Glaucomatose]

That's entirely true. If you see someone hurting a baby, you should let the police know immediately.

[M L]

You do know that fetuses are babies, right? Millions of pregnant women and people who know them refer to them that way, totally outside of any political gamesmanship. Words are defined by their usage. As opposed to the word games that you try to play for political reasons.

And:
fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/
Learn to pronounce
noun
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

[KCar]

Why shouldnt you have to wear a mask all the time if that is your logic. Why should anyone be allowed out of their house?

[CannedSaltyHam]

Why should religious parents be forced to subsidize a school system they can't even utilize without violating their beliefs?

[Krychek_2]

I doubt the government does much of anything that doesn't violate somebody's religion, and there are those with religious objections to governance at all. At some point, we can't accommodate everybody's religion.

[KCar]

Wouldnt school choice go a long ways to alleviate this for millions of kids?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No? This law applies to all schools.

[KCar]

Simple, school just says it our position that the state 'require' vax - since its private medical information and you have a right to privacy, we can not ask for proof.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why should people -- people who don't like to be told what to do -- be forced to subsidize a transportation system that includes stop signs, center lines, red lights, and 'no parking in intersection' signs?

[Don Nico]

that is one of your most stupid suggestions/questions.

[ReaderY]

For the same reason they can be forced to subsidize a war that violates their beliefs, abortions that violate their beliefs, social security that violates their beliefs, and much more. It’s well established that religion doesn’t grant an exemption from paying taxes. And the constitution specifically permits taxing and spending for the “general welfare,” e.g. not on a fee for service basis.

[Pettifogger]

My children had all vaccines the pediatrician recommended for them, and as far as I know, I've had all appropriate vaccinations including Covid. But I respect others' right to behave differently. Religious reservations should be respected as well as prudential ones.

As for rule by experts, experts have hardly covered themselves in glory of late. Expertise is for sale to those with political agendas.

[Queen Amalthea]

I'll take experts with all their failings over yahoos any day.

[Libertymike]

Maybe your take is rooted in your intellectual laziness and your puerile and slavish devotion to credentialism.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Or maybe his take is rooted in listening to people who know more about a subject than he does and learning something. Maybe you only accept information that fits in with your narrow ideological agenda. Isn't it fun to guess about people we don't know?

[Glaucomatose]

Religious reservations are respected as long as they don't impose a risk of harm on others. A contagious disease does not care about the religious beliefs of the host.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How should we handle people whose religious convictions require them to ignore stop signs, speed limits, and center lines?

What about those whose religious convictions require them to have abortions at 33 weeks, to refuse to transact with bigots (and whose doctrine identifies all Republicans as bigots), and to sound loud alarms just outside their homes each day at 3:33 a.m.?

What about those religious convictions forbid clothing, schooling for children, or providing any material assistance -- food, clothing, shelter -- to a child after age 3?

[Flight-ER-Doc]

How does grandfathering some square with the 14th amendment?

[santamonica811]

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the rationale for allowing those exceptions, if this is a putative safety-for-all issue.

(I'm guessing that it was under the theory of, "They're assholes, but relatively quite few in number. So, it's easier to accommodate them, rather than try to force them to capitulate.")

[ReaderY]

It would seem that Conmecticut is asking for a Police v. Newark style striking down of its law. Perhaps that was the purpose. Perhaps it a passed a deliberately unconstitutional law intending for it not to be enforced in order to mollify a constituency.

The grandfather clause undercuts the claim that the law is of general applicability. If there’s no problem with continuing the exemption for people who’ve had it before, surely there’s no problem continuing it for future people. It also undercuts a claim that its interest is compelling.

Connecticut is entitled to eliminate its religious exemption. But if it does so and then create a new exemption, it’s saying that religion is less important than having a vested interest. This law says religion isn’t sufficiently important to override, but having a vested interest is. Religion is a less favored interest.

That’s practically asking to get strick down under the Supreme Court’s current doctrine.