This is certainly thoughtful. But what about the Jehovah's Witnesses cases re
transfusions? Are we necessarily to prefer the interests of the religious
parents over the health and safety of the child? Or do we simply say that the
risk of measles, polio, tetanus etc. isn't so serious as the
Hi all,
Without getting deeply mired myself (right now) in the
normative implications here, it might still be worth noting that:
1.
Exemptions from vaccination requirements only become a serious public
health issue when they increase to the point of threatening herd
immunity. That is to
I'm a bit confused as to which question Perry and Sandy (and Doug?) are
discussing. To break it down a bit for clarification:
1. It would be perfectly constitutional for the state to require everyone
to be vaccinated; a fortiori, vaccination can be made a condition of
attending school. That's
Marty,
I agree with # 1, except in states that might have a
particularly robust state free exercise doctrine.
I also agree with #
2.
The issue with respect to # 3, though, is this: What if it turns
out that an exemption regime limited to actual religious objections (and
not personal ones)
PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Vaccine objectors
Sandy,
Thanks.
I did elide the state's distinct interest (separate from its general interest
in assuring herd immunity) in making sure that individual children are
protected from
]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 11:15 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Vaccine objectors
Marty,
I agree with # 1, except in states that might have a particularly robust state
free exercise doctrine.
I also agree with # 2.
The issue with respect to # 3, though
Sandy,
Normatively, I do think that when the risk to the health of
a child is grave and imminent, the state can and should intervene and
require treatment.
Perry
On 02/01/2015 11:31 pm, Levinson, Sanford V
wrote:
I'm still not certain what Perry's position is re the
Jehovah's Witness
10:16 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Vaccine objectors
Marty,
I agree with # 1, except in states that might have a particularly robust state
free exercise doctrine.
I also agree with # 2.
The issue with respect to # 3, though, is this: What if it turns out
I think part of the theory for requiring vaccination for school attendance is
that you catch the whole population that way. And in the first generation being
vaccinated, their parents all had the diseases.
Vaccination is a case where pretty much every court would find a compelling
interest.
