An affirmation or oath that the signer has a sincere religious belief prohbiting the vaccination in question. Inviting the health worker or school secretary to make any sort of substantive decision would cause endless mischief.
Kevin Chen Sent on my mobile device. Please Excuse my brevity and typographic errors. On Feb 4, 2015 10:43 AM, "Will Esser" <[email protected]> wrote: > In light of the recent Listserv discussion, I note that there is an > interesting op-ed in the Charlotte Observer this morning regarding North > Carolina's religious exemption to vaccinations. > http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/02/03/5491428/an-nc-loophole-on-vaccinations.html > The editorial board expresses what may be the common lay opinion on the > matter, namely: > > "Like many states, North Carolina allows exemptions for medical reasons, > such as allergies, and religious beliefs. The medical exemption requires a > request from a licensed physician, but *the religious exemption requires > merely a statement that includes the name and date of birth of the person > for whom the exemption is being requested. No elaboration on the religious > objection is needed, nor any evidence of religious affiliation or faith. * > That’s a loophole that allows parents to game the system to avoid > vaccination, and there are helpful anti-vaccine web sites that coach North > Carolina parents on how to craft a letter that meets the requirements and > won’t raise the eyebrows of public officials. > Although North Carolina is among the states with the highest vaccination > rates, parents across the country are increasingly taking advantage of > exemptions. *N.C. officials should minimize the public health risk by > tightening its loophole so that people with legitimate religious objections > to vaccinations, such as the Amish, are distinguishable from those who > merely have personal or philosophical objections.* > Those who have the latter are welcome to deny vaccinations for their > schoolchildren. But those children shouldn’t be allowed in school." > (Emphasis added) > > Assuming that a legislature were looking to craft a revised religious > exemption that allowed for "*legitimate* religious objections" but weeded > out others, what would the language of the exemption look like? Is it even > possible to craft such an exemption or will courts be inclined (as they > generally have been) to defer to the sincerity of the religious belief of > the individual and not attempt to distinguish between "legitimate" and > "illegitimate" religious objections? > > Will > > > > Will Esser --- Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam > Charlotte, North Carolina > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
