Malena Bendik
The repeal of religious vaccination exemptions in New York State has ignited a heated and contentious debate. The longstanding religious exemption afforded individuals the constitutional right to practice their faith without interference in vaccination requirements. This significant bill disrupted a practice upheld since 1963 and has given rise to profound concerns regarding individual freedoms, parental rights, medical autonomy, and the constitutional legitimacy of such measures. This repeal marks a departure from the established norm and sets the stage for a critical examination of its implications on personal liberties and constitutional principles.
The vaccination exemption landscape shifted dramatically when lawmakers began to take action against a measles outbreak that predominantly affected “ultra-Orthodox” communities in Brooklyn and Rockland County. The state government ultimately revoked the religious exemption for vaccinations, marking a significant departure from long-standing policies.[1] This pivotal decision has motivated public disapproval and necessitates an examination of the adverse consequences this decision has on rights, personal choice, informed consent, and the delicate balance between public health and individual liberties. This repeal is unconstitutional and a violation of several amendments.
The decision to eliminate the religious exemption was driven by the urgency to curb the escalating measles epidemic, which had surged to over 1,000 cases—the highest in 27 years.[2] In response, the New York State Senate swiftly passed Bill 2994 on June 13th, 2019, rendering it effective immediately upon signature. This legislation mandated that all children, regardless of their educational setting (public, private, or religious schools) or enrollment in daycare, camps, and pre-K programs, must receive the first dose of every required vaccination within 30 days from the start of enrollment.
The mandated vaccines include a comprehensive list, such as the Diphtheria and Tetanus toxoid-containing vaccine and Pertussis vaccine (DTaP or Tdap), Hepatitis B, Polio, Varicella (Chickenpox), Meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY), Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (HiB), the Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR), as specified by the New York State Department of Health.
Historically, the United States of America has championed the protection of individual liberties, including the fundamental right to make informed choices about personal and familial health. This commitment, enshrined in constitutional protections, underscores the autonomy individuals possess over their bodies and those of their children. However, the revocation of religious vaccination exemptions poses a direct challenge to this principle. By stripping parents of their right to decide what goes into their child’s body, it constitutes a profound infringement on personal liberties, setting a troubling precedent with ramifications beyond the realm of vaccinations. Mandating specific medical interventions abuses individual agency and undermines the core principles of autonomy and liberty integral to the American ethos.
Moreover, this repeal not only undermines parental rights but also threatens broader personal freedoms. It establishes a dangerous precedent, signaling governmental intrusion into personal health decisions, potentially paving the way for future encroachments on various aspects of individual freedom. The notion that the state can dictate medical procedures without due consideration for individual circumstances or parental rights disrupts the delicate balance between public health interests and the protection of personal liberties.
To provide a personal perspective, an interview was conducted with Michael Bendik. A widowed father of four, his family was heavily impacted by the repeal of exemptions. “In 2019, all of my children were enrolled in public school. We were allowed to finish out the year there, but we had to begin homeschooling the following fall”.[3] When asked how his children adapted to the new educational experience, Mr. Bendik replied, “My children had a difficult time transitioning to homeschooling, especially the oldest. Homeschooling lacks the social interaction and structure that public school provided.” He explained that without being allowed to participate in sports and extracurricular activities through the school, the family pushed to get out of the house and utilized the library or volunteer opportunities to avoid isolation and lack of socialization. “When the repeal took effect, our only options were to homeschool or to move to a state that allowed philosophical or religious exemptions”.[4] As of December 2023, five other states have eliminated these alternatives. California, Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi, and West Virginia have also repealed the right to religious vaccine exemptions.[5]
Despite the challenges his children faced, Mr. Bendik emphasized the freedom that this form of schooling allowed in order to advance their curriculum and learning pace. He explained that his children now use online resources to complete their schooling.[6]“Unfortunately, some children did not adapt well to homeschooling and are now several years behind their public or private school peers. I am grateful that my kids were able to overcome these challenges and excel beyond their grade levels.” Mr. Bendik was also presented with questions regarding his opinion on the constitutionality of the bill. To these, he responded, “It was Democratic oppression leaning toward a communist-type move. Stripping thousands of parents of their right to choose what to put in their child’s body or how to practice their religion is not appropriate.”
Fortunately, the New York State government received a lot of backlash and comments similar to this from hundreds of families affected state-wide. According to The Guardian,
…parents of unvaccinated children gathered at New York’s capitol [Albany] to protest against the vote. Stan Yung, a Long Island attorney and father, said his Russian Orthodox religious views and health concerns about vaccines would prevent him from vaccinating his three young children.
Yung said that he may consider leaving the state and added, “People came to this country to get away from exactly this kind of stuff.” Yung’s statement reflects the frustration and concern felt by many parents who oppose the repeal. The protest at the state’s capitol demonstrates the level of opposition and the potential consequences that families are willing to face in order to maintain their personal beliefs and fight for their rights. The repeal “…caused Petitioners and thousands of similarly situated families irreparable harm by forcing them to choose between violating their religious beliefs and depriving their children of a school-based education.” It is important to keep in mind that a free, public education is guaranteed by state law. The bill also forced these families to find immediate ways to educate their children, “…requiring additional expenditures on childcare, disruption to their careers, and financial strain”.[7]The families affected by the repeal saw their constitutional rights violated, as they were being forced to compromise their religious beliefs. The financial burden and disruption caused by the bill further exacerbated the challenges they faced in ensuring their children received an education that aligned with their values.
The repeal of religious exemptions in New York State holds significant implications for various religious and cultural communities that hold reservations about vaccinations, citing reliance on prayer and spiritual healing through divine intervention. Examining the perspectives of religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism provides insights into the constitutional concerns raised by the repeal.
In Christianity, certain denominations have historically favored spiritual healing over conventional medical interventions. Christians often rely on prayer and spiritual practices for healing, and some may view vaccinations as contrary to their faith-based approach to health. Christian opposition to vaccinations base arguments on the firm foundation of the Bible. In James 5:13-15, it reads, “Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray…Is anyone among you sick?… the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up”.[8]
Another aspect of this includes the abortion argument.
For certain Christians, the decision of whether to vaccinate comes down to the origins of the vaccines themselves. Some pro-life parents cite a moral disgust and a deep lament over the use of 58-year-old aborted fetal cell lines in development for several recommended immunizations, including MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) and chickenpox.[9]
Christians are called by God to be mindful of what enters their bodies. In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, the Bible states, “your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you…therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s”.[10] For these Christians, the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccine development raises ethical concerns about defiling their bodies, which they believe should be treated as sacred vessels.
Similarly, there are diverse perspectives on vaccination within Islam. Many Muslim communities express reservations due to concerns about the permissibility of certain vaccine ingredients. For instance, the use of substances such as gelatin, porcine (derived from pigs), bovine (derived from cows), egg proteins, or other non-halal sources may conflict with Islamic dietary laws.
In Islamic laws, the consumption of dead meat [carcasses], blood, and swine flesh which has been summoned with the name other than Allah are strictly prohibited and classified as al-najasat [ritually impure, sing. Najs] and therefore haram [impermissible] unless in darurat [dire conditions] as stated in the Quran [al-Ma’idah: 3].[11]
Hinduism holds parallel views toward bovine-infused products.
In Judaism, certain Orthodox Jewish communities also harbor concerns related to vaccine ingredients and their compliance with kosher dietary laws. Additionally, the requirement to undergo medical interventions may be viewed as a challenge to the principle of relying on divine intervention for healing, which is integral to certain religious beliefs within Judaism.
The argument that the repeal is unconstitutional gains strength when considering the diversity of religious beliefs and practices. The United States Constitution, through the First Amendment, protects the right of individuals to practice their religion freely. By mandating vaccinations without providing sufficient religious exemptions, the government risks infringing upon these protected rights. This violates not only the constitutional principle of religious freedom but also religious law as stated in the Bible, Torah, or Quran.
Finally, there are distinct legal issues behind the implementation of this bill. This repeal is unconstitutional; by refusing access to public or private schooling (as well as daycares and camps), in the state of New York, the government is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This Amendment states that no child may be denied equal access to education. By restricting access to schooling, the state government clearly violates the rights of all children.
The due process clause of the 14th Amendment also proves this repeal’s unconstitutionality by protecting the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their offspring.
In Troxel, this Court stated that so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of the parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s child.[12]
New York’s decision to deny access to public or private schooling without valid justification raises serious constitutional concerns. By implementing this repeal, the state infringes upon the fundamental right and ability of parents to fulfill their responsibilities in raising and educating their children.
As previously stated, this repeal additionally violates the First Amendment, which protects the freedom to practice religion and the separation of church and state. By requiring vaccinations, the state directly imposes restrictions on religious freedom and blocks access to constitutional rights. The Supreme Court petition F.F. et al., v. State of New York, puts this into perspective, explaining,
A law cannot target religion, and, if enacted with even the slightest hint of animus, it cannot stand. Further, a law not explicitly hostile to religion must be truly neutral and generally applicable…the State Court here failed to faithfully apply this Court’s precedents.[13]
The petition argues that mandating vaccinations as a requirement for exercising constitutional rights violates the principle of religious freedom. It emphasizes that any law that discriminates against religion or shows hostility toward it cannot be constitutional. The Supreme Court’s precedent requires that laws be neutral without targeting or burdening religious practices. However, this repeal is clearly not generally applicable; it only applies to religious exemptions.[14]
Additionally, the state court explicitly dismissed the First Amendment by claiming that the religious exemptions were rightly repealed due to misuse by those who did not truly hold religious opposition.[15] This completely undermines the fundamental principle of religious freedom. This decision sets a dangerous precedent that allows for subjective judgment on individuals’ religious beliefs, going against the core values of liberty and the Constitution.
Many politicians support the New York State repeal of religious exemptions for vaccinations. This opposing view argues that the government’s mandate for vaccinations is necessary to protect public health and prevent the spread of contagious diseases.[16] Pro-vaccine activists argue that while the First Amendment protects religious freedom, it does not grant individuals the right to put others at risk by refusing vaccinations.
The state, defined in consultation with medical experts, justified compulsory vaccinations. The court’s discussion confirmed that the ideals of limited government do not absolve us of our social obligation to protect each other. The court made it clear that we do not have a constitutional right to infect others.[17]
This view shows that the court’s ruling acknowledged that individual rights must be limited in order to safeguard the well-being of the community as a whole.
However, the United States of America was founded on the principles of liberty, freedom, and justice. By undermining individuals’ rights, New York State disregards all that this country and the Constitution stand for. While public safety should be a concern, upholding inalienable rights is fundamental to maintaining a just and democratic society. It is crucial to strike a balance between protecting public health and respecting individual liberties, as both are essential for a functioning democracy. In this particular case, the bill passed was unconstitutional and violated this balance.
In conclusion, the repeal of religious vaccination exemptions in New York State, ostensibly driven by concerns over a measles outbreak, has given rise to a multifaceted debate touching upon individual freedoms, parental rights, and constitutional principles. While the urgency to address public health crises is undeniable, the method employed–revoking long-standing religious exemptions–has sparked significant constitutional and ethical concerns.
Historically, the United States has championed the protection of individual liberties, including the right to make informed healthcare choices rooted in personal and religious beliefs. The decision to eliminate religious vaccination exemptions represents a stark departure from this tradition. Stripping parents of their authority to decide on medical interventions for their children infringes upon the very essence of personal liberties, setting precedent that reaches beyond the scope of vaccination mandates.
Furthermore, the repeal raises serious constitutional issues, particularly in its violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. Denying access to education based on vaccination status undermines the fundamental right to equal educational opportunities. The repeal’s disregard for religious beliefs, as illuminated by various examples from different faiths, highlights a failure to accommodate the diverse cultural and religious landscape of the affected communities.
The 2019 New York State religious exemptions repeal is unconstitutional, and it sets a dangerous precedent by prioritizing public health concerns over individual rights and freedoms. By mandating vaccinations for all students, regardless of their religious beliefs, the government essentially forces individuals to choose between their faith and the education of their children. This infringement on personal liberties raises concerns about the erosion of constitutional protections and the potential for further encroachments on individual autonomy in the future.
[1] “Judge to Hear Oral Argument on the Repeal of the Religious Exemption to Vaccination for New York Children,” Children’s Health Defense, August 13, 2019, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/press-release/judge-to-hear-oral-argument-on-the-repeal-of-the-religious-exemption-to-vaccination-for-new-york-children/.
[2] Klepper, David. “New York Ends Vaccination Opt-outs: State Eliminates Religious Exemption amid Measles Scare,” Niagara Falls Review, 2019, ProQuest One Academic.
[3] Bendik, Michael. Interviewed 01 December 2023
[4] Ibid., 2023
[5] “States With Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From School Immunization Requirements.” National Conference of State Legislatures, www.ncsl.org/health/states-with-religious-and-philosophical-exemptions-from-school-immunization-requirements.
[6] Bendik, 2023
[7] F.F., ETC., et al., v. State of New York, 21 S. Ct. (Dec. 3, 2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1003/207832/20220110152049902_Petition.pdf.
[8] James 5:13-15 (New King James Version).
[9] Randall, Rebecca. “Not worth a shot: Why some Christians refuse vaccinations on moral grounds.” Christianity Today, 26 Apr. 2019, www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/april-web-only/why-christians-refuse-measles-vaccinations-moral-grounds.html.
[10] 1 Cor. 6:19-20 (NKJV)
[11] Zulkarnain, Nurul Nadiah, et al. “Cell-based Influenza Vaccine: Current Production, Status Assessment, and Recommendations towards Islamic-compliant Manufacturing.” Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, vol. 17, no. 7, 4 Feb. 2021, pp. 2158-68, https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2020.1865044.
[12] Kelly Georgeone. “Routten v. John Tyler Routten.” 20-618, 8, (2020).
[13] Ibid., (14-15).
[14] Ibid., (15)
[15] Donna M. Gitter, “First Amendment Challenges to State Vaccine Mandates: Why the U.S. Supreme Court Should Hold That the Free Exercise Clause Does Not Require Religious Exemptions,” American University Law Review 71, no. 6 (2022): [113], ProQuest Central (2761036496).
[16] Kaufman, Martin. “The American Anti-Vaccinationists and Their Arguments,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 41, no. 5 (1967): JSTOR.
[17] Karon, Daniel, and Gillian Karon. “To Vax or Not to VAX Is Not a Constitutional Question.” Law360, LexisNexis, 19 Nov. 2021, www.law360.com/articles/1441375/to-vax-or-not-to-vax-is-not-a-constitutional-question.