Maine May Mandate Vaccines for Health Care Workers with No Religious Exemption (but with Medical Exemption)

So Judge Jon Levy (D. Me.) held today in Lowe v. Mills. An excerpt:

In this case, the amended complaint and the properly considered documents,  information, and facts before me show that the purpose of requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers is solely to protect public health. Exempting individuals whose health will be threatened if they receive a COVID-19 vaccine is an essential, constituent part of a reasoned public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It does not express or suggest a discriminatory bias against religion.

In the context of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the medical exemption is rightly viewed as an essential facet of the vaccine's core purpose of protecting the health of patients and healthcare workers, including those who, for bona fide medical reasons, cannot be safely vaccinated. In addition, the vaccine mandate places an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to protecting public health—for example, philosophical or politically-based objections to state-mandated vaccination requirements—to the same extent that it burdens religious beliefs.

Thus, the medical exemption available as to all mandatory vaccines required by Maine law does not reflect a value judgment unfairly favoring secular interests over religious interests. As an integral part of the vaccine requirement itself, the medical exemption for healthcare workers does not undermine the vaccine mandate's general applicability. The amended complaint does not plead any facts that plausibly support the conclusion that the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is not generally applicable. Because the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is both neutral and generally applicable, rational basis review applies.

The court also concludes that the mandate doesn't violate Title VII's duty of reasonable accommodation of religious objections; I may have more to say about that in a later post.

Comments

[Martinned]

the vaccine mandate places an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to protecting public health

In other words, it passes the MFN test.

[John F. Carr]

You can describe it in a way that makes it pass or fail the MFN test. Substantially similar policies have gone both ways in the courts.

Title VII may provide broader protections than the constitution, but you can't get an injunction. You have to refuse the vaccine, lose your job, and take a chance on getting back pay later. It does weed out the insincere religious claims, and perhaps also the insincere employer policies.

[MollyGodiva]

This is correct. Medical exemptions are because you can't get the vaccine, religious is because you don't want to.

[Rossami]

While I agree with the outcome of this decision, your statement of it is wrong. Some religious refusals may be characterized as "don't want to" but other sincerely held beliefs are just as much "can't" as the medical reasons. Both are choices reflecting the holder's belief in future consequences. "I can't do X or I will die" is actually less threatening to some people than "I can't do X or I will damned forever in the afterlife".

[Reallynotbob]

You're making an assumption about the nature of the religious belief. Some objections to conduct may involve eternal damnation, but which ones? It's difficult to strengthen the free exercise exception without offering a loophole in the social contract for those who would cynically claim religion to avoid governance entirely.

What to do about the Church of the Can't Tax Me? Dianetics "auditors" famously flaunted FDA regulation of their medical instruments and relabeled themselves a "church" specifically to avoid it (and taxes).

[Krayt]

Medical exemption: I could die from it.

Religious exemption: I could go to Hell for it.

Now if one wants to mock religion, saddle up because I have a whole bag of it. But the government has no interest in declaring beliefs invalid, and The People told it such concerns, by themselves, are of the higbest order with respect to legislation.

[Don Nico]

Unfortunately as time processes the efficacy of the offered vaccines has gotten less and less and the recognition of adverse effects has gotten greater except among public health "authorities."
Having to live with a dependent who suffers from a severe adverse consequence of the mRNA vaccine, I am not sympathetic to your view although all members of my household have gotten the full run of innoculations

[Reallynotbob]

I'd like to hear about the severe adverse consequence of the mRNA vaccine your dependent suffers. My understanding is those are pretty rare and recoverable. What happened?

[Don Nico]

In my son's case he has developed, essentially over night, severe problems with balance that require him to use a heavy walking stick and a leg brace. MRI imaging shows no obvious spinal cord or brain injury. Yet here is a formerly very athletic man reduced to a severe disability.
It appeared immediately post vaccine 1 and worsened after vaccine 2. He did decide to have a booster shot and developed no further consequences.
The period over which the condition developed had not accompanying changes in medication or diet (which have been constant for several years).
Can I prove conclusively that the mRNA vaccine physically caused the disability? No. But there were no other visible causes. And the dual coincidence is highly suggestive.

[Don Nico]

I should add that there has been no improvement over the past 15 months

[ReaderY]

Everybody who criticizes the government is choosing to. Since it is a matter of choice, not nevessity, they have no right to complaim if the government outlaws it. Constitutional rights apply only to things that people NEED to to, never to anything they choose to. Soit’s a choice, it’s by definition not a constitutional right.

Like abortion.

Agree?

This seems to be your position.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The government can force someone to take a therapeutic?

[legalizeshrooms]

Does it make a difference if the vaccine mandate is for covid or measles?

[Longtobefree]

It does matter if the vaccine actually works, and has been fully tested, and the government acknowledges the side effects, and follows medical advice on the age groups that should actually get the vaccines, etc, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

All of that is true for the Covid vaccine.

The government is not obliged to indulge you delusions.

[M L]

Depends what you mean by fully tested. They used to take 10-15 years before being confident of safety and efficacy.

With that said, I'm not sure it matters for the 1st amendment. Judges should not be policymakers, scientific fact finders, and deciders of trade-offs and value judgments.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0
August.18.2022 at 8:20 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
All of that is true for the Covid vaccine."

Sarcastro you keep demonstrating an extremely poor knowledge of medical science.

The CDC lost a lot of credibility with their recommendation to vaccinate children with the covid vax. Your statement that "all is true for the covid vaccine " in reference to fully tested and evaluated for effectiveness is absolutely false.

[Reallynotbob]

Man, it's almost like the technology to make mRNA vaccines didn't radically reduce the number of mechanisms for severe side effects while enhancing our ability to respond quickly and effectively to deadly viruses. The way some folks talk about "fully evaluated," you'd think the polio vaccine was still in early trials.

Anyway, you're leaving out the entire efficacy vs. risk analysis. If we were talking about an incremental advance vs. the standard flu or common cold, I'd be more on your side. But in the face of an overwhelming public health emergency (you remember that part?) the mandates--especially for health workers--made a lot of sense.

[Joe_dallas]

reallynotbob - my reference to fully testing / efficacy , etc related to the strong cdc recommendation to vax children with the covid vax. As has been known since the summer of 2020, the covid risk to children is exceedingly small (near zero) with the exception of children already suffering from a deadly disease. So basically, it made zero sense to vax children for protection against a virus that poses near zero threat.
Almost every health authority world wide recognized that, but the CDC ignored good science and common sense

[David Nieporent]

The CDC lost a lot of credibility

"I don't believe them" is a statement of your obtuseness, not their credibility.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent
August.19.2022 at 3:31 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
The CDC lost a lot of credibility

"I don't believe them" is a statement of your obtuseness, not their credibility.

David - your response is really a sign that you lack basic knowledge of science and math.

On the CDc website , the CDC list 18-20 studies claiming masking works to reduce the spread. 6 of those 20 odd studies have serious flaws which the CDC is very well aware of, yet they continue to promote studies that the CDc knows are flawed. Tell us what knowledgable person would attributed credibility to the CDC.

Likewise the CDc heavily promotes covid vaxes for children even the risk of covid to children is near zero risk. No other industrialized country recommends covid vaxes for children.

Tell us how much credibility would you give to the CDC - assuming you have the capability to assess the science!

[Joe_dallas]

The vaccine was widely viewed as a positive game changer back in November of 2020. By July/august 2021 it was evident that the effectiveness of the vaccine drops significantly after months. boosters shots began to be introduced in the fall of 2021. By Dec 2021, it was evident that the effectiveness of boosters dropped significantly after 2-3 months. By the summer of 2021 it became evident that natural infection provided better immunity, both stronger and longer (albiet slight to moderately better). By april 2022, evidence has been emerging that the vaccine may actually be inhibiting the development of longer lasting immunity.

It should be evident to everyone by now that the vaccine is barely a short term fix and is not, nor every will be a long term solution.

So what is being accomplished with the vaccine

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Practicing medical tyranny so they can perfect it for the Great Reset.

[Longtobefree]

Checked any pharma stocks lately?
Checked which legislators bought in?
Mission accomplished.

[Social Justice is neither]

Billions of dollars in extracted revenues, tens of thousands dead. I mean, those are the benefits for the donor class and the gaia worshipers.

[David Nieporent]

By the summer of 2021 it became evident that natural infection provided better immunity, both stronger and longer

Still not true, no matter how many times you say it and link to a blog.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent
August.19.2022 at 3:32 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
By the summer of 2021 it became evident that natural infection provided better immunity, both stronger and longer

"Still not true, no matter how many times you say it and link to a blog."

David - all I can say regarding your numerous responses is that you are very much ill informed on the current state of covid knowledge. Try if you can to make more than a half -as attempt to become up to speed.

[David Nieporent]

Do you have a macro which allows you to type "current state of covid knowledge" with one keystroke? Because it's the mantra you recite every time, and still based on nothing other than a blog you read by someone who isn't an SME.

[Joe_dallas]

David - you havent shown any interest in keeping up with the evolving knowledge of covid science. Otherwise you would be aware of the information i have stated.

You have repetitively said that some internet blog isnt worth your time. I am not relying on his blog for covid information , I am relying on the studies he links to.

you have repetitively said those studies are Preprints and since they are not peer reviewed - yet you have no idea why those studies have not been peer reviewed. ( hint peer review process takes several months - covid knowledge / science is rapidly evolving, so the peer review process takes 6+ months)

You have yet to find any statement that I have made that is wrong, even though you have claimed they were wrong - indicating that you are not up to speed on the subject matter.

You seem to be relying on the CDC for your knowledge, yet you seem to be completely unaware of the studies that continue to be promoted by the CDC inspite of known flaws in those studies - flaws that are known by every one who is up to speed on the subject matter.

I listed 6 of the flawed studies that the CDC promotes as showing masks work.

Try to actually read some of those studies

[John F. Carr]

Is Andrew Koppelman moonlighting as a clerk for Judge Levy? This overlaps well with the ongoing series about how awful religious accomodations are.

[John F. Carr]

As I wrote in one of Koppelman's threads, you can look at the government's motive in two ways. In 2021 vaccination mandates were supposed to move us towards herd immunity. In that case it makes no difference if the unvaccinated person is exempt due to legitimate health concerns, you can't let that plague carrier anywhere near a patient. Maine has apparently argued that its motive is to protect the health of one individual at a time. Courts do permit government to tell individuals "do this, it's good for you even if the alternative harms nobody else". Viewed that way, it makes no sense to fire people for refusing vaccination. Put them in prison for breaking the law, but not fire them.

[Netizen_James]

Good. There should never be any 'religious exceptions' to any generally applicable statutes. Just as was ruled in Reynolds v US way back in 1878:
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/)

No, you can't legally deal LSD, even if you're a member of the Neo American Church and believe that LSD is a 'sacrament'. No, you can't discriminate against black people at your barbeque joint, even if you say your religion requires it. See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/256/941/2349546/

[Jacob Grimes]

Is it still generally applicable if it allows certain exemptions?

The court, in my opinion, engages in some disjointed reasoning here to justify its conclusion, especially when it talks about how medical exemptions still further the state's interest. It seems to boil down to that the state can require you, as a condition of employment with the state, to get vaccinated solely because it's good for you, regardless of what you want. After all, the medically exempted individual poses the same transmission risk to others as the religiously exempted one.

[ReaderY]

The state can’t force you to drive on the right hand side of the road, right? After all, the sole reason it does this is it’s good for you, right? There’s no concern about any possible effect on anyone else.

Same here.

The traditional reason for compelling vaccines is to prevent the spread of disease to others, just as the main reason for requiring you to drive on the right hand side of the road is to prevent you from crashing into others.

We don’t live in the mythic world you are fantasizing about where what people do never affects anyone else.

[David Nieporent]

Good. There should never be any 'religious exceptions' to any generally applicable statutes.

You're begging the question; there's a whole series of posts on this blog this week about what counts as "generally applicable."

[ReaderY]

I think the outcome here is correct. This law would pass pre-Smith compelling interest.

I think Smith deserves a narrowing interpretation. But I don’t think a interpretation of Smith results in protecting things that would not have been protected pre-Smith.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or a century of student vaccination requirements?

This blog attracts a particularly ignorant and stupid audience of right-wingers, and I don't believe it to be unintended.

[damikesc]

People get fired for not taking flu shots?

I know it is VITAL that Pfizer makes a ton of money on one of the more useless vaccines ever produced.

[Joe_dallas]

flu shots are at best 50% effective, though slightly more effective than the covid shot - tortures the english language to call the covid shot a vaccine.

[Reallynotbob]

Many of the Founders also assumed landed white non-Jewish non-Catholic men would make all the decisions, so conflict with religious practices was likely to be minor. The closer you go back to the founding, the more intolerance for religious practices you find. But actual bans on Catholics holding office, for example, persisted well into the 19th Century. Disfavored practices were not well tolerated.

[Toranth]

WHAT?!
You think the landed white non-Jewish non-Catholic men that left their homeland because they didn't want to be killed for having slightly different church ceremonies assumed there would be only minor conflicts?

Do you actually know anything about the history of religion in Europe?