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 say, we can -- from a public health perspective --
tolerate some exemptions, but not too many. 

2. According to some
studies, states that allow "personal" in addition to "religious"
exemptions, and states that grant exemptions "easily," have (not a
surprise) a higher rate of non-vaccinators than states that limit
exemptions to "religious" motives or put more hurdles (documentation,
etc.) in the way of folks seeking exemptions. See, e.g.,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17032989 

3. It might even be
possible, though I don't have any numbers to support this, that limiting
exemptions to genuine "religious" objectors, and defining religion in
any of the standard ways, would produce a rate of non-vaccination low
enough not to pose a major public health risk. (That still leaves, of
course, the question of risk to the individual unvaccinated child. But
even that risk might be considerably reduced if "herd immunity" is in
place.) 

That is to say, vaccination might be one of those contexts in
which society has a solid compelling interest in enforcing a rule
overall but not necessarily a compelling interest in enforcing that rule
on genuinely religious objectors. (That was, for better or worse,
Burger's argument in _Yoder_). 

The obvious challenge here is to the
"religion is not special" view. If "leveling up" produces distinctly bad
results (of a sort not produced by more limited religious exemptions),
should that be a reason to "level down" and eliminate all exemptions?
That is to say, should religious objectors lose rights they might
otherwise have if too many non-religious folks want to get on the
bandwagon? 

And even for the rest of us, who do think that "religion is
special," the intrusion of these sorts of facts creates a quandary. What
if, for example, one part of the country has a number of religious
objectors below the "herd immunity" threshold and another part of the
country has a number above the threshold? How should law respond? 

As I
said, I'm just asking the question here, not trying to answer it.


Perry 
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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.

Reply via email to