DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Gov. signs bill ending religious vaccine exemptions as groups promise legal challenges

Gov. signs bill ending religious vaccine exemptions as groups promise legal challenges

HARTFORD, CT (WFSB) – A bill eliminating school vaccine religious exemptions in Connecticut has been signed into law.

Gov. Ned Lamont said Wednesday afternoon that he signed the bill. It will go into effect Sept. 2022.

It makes Connecticut the sixth state in the country to end religions exemption from childhood immunization requirements for schools.

“This is an issue that I have spent a lot of time researching and discussing with medical experts, and it is something that I take very seriously knowing the public health impact that it has on our children, families, and communities,” Lamont said. “When it comes to the safety of our children, we need to take an abundance of caution. This legislation is needed to protect our kids against serious illnesses that have been well-controlled for many decades, such as measles, tuberculosis, and whooping cough, but have reemerged. In recent years, the number of children in our state who have not received routine vaccinations has been steadily increasing, which has been mirrored by significant growth in preventable diseases across the nation. I want to make it clear, this law does not take away the choice of parents to make medical decisions for their children. But, if they do choose not to have their children vaccinated, this bill best ensures that other children and their families will not be exposed to these deadly diseases for hours each day in our schools.”

Also on Wednesday, the CT Freedom Alliance and We the Patriots, opponents of the bill, say they are filing lawsuits, one in federal court and the other at the state Supreme Court.

They said the legislation is unconstitutional.

“My family is immediately impacted by the passing of this bill. My two older boys are thankfully grandfathered in, however my pre-k daughters are not. They are also special education they have IEPs, and that protection is a federal protection," said Sherry Harmon, of Plainfield.

“They admit there is no emergency. What they are saying instead is that we have to be proactive because of what we have seen with COVID. So we have to be proactive about some hypothetical future emergency," said Brian Festa, of CT Freedom Alliance.

Norm Pattis, a high-profile Connecticut attorney, is representing two groups who are challenging the newly passed law in federal and state courts to overturn what was passed.

"This lawsuit will strike at the heart of claims that there can ever be a public health emergency such that fundamental rights to raise your children become the power of the state," Pattis said.

Stephen Gilles, a law professor at Quinnipiac University says if state lawmakers are so concerned about an emergency situation, why are they grandfathering in current students.

"I think there's a genuine possibility Norm Pattis' suit will succeed," Gilles said.

This all comes after a heated debate that weighed public health, access to education and a parent’s ability to choose.

As lawmakers debated the controversial bill inside the capital on Tuesday, people opposed to it protested outside. Most of them were not wearing masks and busloads of them weren't even from Connecticut. The protests are expected to continue this week.

More than 7,000 students across the state currently have religious exemptions, according to state data.

Tuesday night, the state Senate passed the bill, which will require students getting vaccines for tetanus, diphtheria, and MMR.

It will impact new students and will allow kindergarten through 12th grade students who currently have that religious exemptions to stay in school and be grandfathered in.

Those in favor of the bill said the number of students claiming religious exemptions continues to increase.

“It is a protection, first and foremost, of the large number of students who are immunosuppressed and immunocompromised,” argued Sen. Martin Looney, a Democrat.

Others, however, said they’re concerned about access to education.

“When you start to abridge rights and then don’t protect the taking away of those rights with due process, you’re setting our towns our communities up for lawsuits,” said Sen. Kevin Kelly, a Republican.

“There are many issues that come into play. The 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States protects the people and citizenry against the what the legislature did yesterday," said Republican State Senator Eric Berthel.

Democrats said they're confident that the bill is on strong legal footing.

“The state has an obligation to protect children when there has been a determination as we made in this case; that public health will be protected by broad based vaccination," said Democratic State Senator, and Senate President Martin Looney.

Connecticut is now the 6th state to remove the religious exemption. New York has done this and there was a legal challenge in California, but the courts rejected it.

https://www.wfsb.com/news/gov-signs-bill...5bbfc6d8ff.html

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I'd have to dust off the Constitutional Law cobwebs in my brain from when I graduated 12 years ago, but I think in a case where equal protection/religious discrimination is being alleged, the courts review it with strict scrutiny, meaning that the law has to be "narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest."

I imagine this bill will have to meet those ramifications.

The final blow to humanity.

I think religious freedom will be uphold as it is in most such examples.

Good bet.

This is my personal belief.

I feel there should be a declination between a personal belief and a religious belief.

To be a religious belief there should be 2 criteria.
1, a recognized official religion has to specifically have something related to it in their formal doctrine that prohibits such an act or behavior.

2, you have to prove that you are a member of that church. Proof of Church attendance or 12 months of donations to that Church or something (however you choose to define that).

If you do not meet those two criteria then it is a personal belief which an individual is certainly welcome to, but it does not provide for religious exemption because it isn't a "my religion says I can't" and is actually an "I don't want".

I would say so, too, since strict scrutiny is the standard.

Wait until the cobwebs and dust have been gathering for 40+ years on anything you don't use much on a regular basis.

I don't know how one could prove they go to church on a regular basis. You don't get receipts when they pass the plate. I will say most large donors don't do so by leaving $1000 cash in the envelope, but for most, it's maybe $20 to $100 cash in the envelope.

While I might agree on what passes for a legit church, if they qualify under 501c, they quality. I will say I don't know what sort of proofs they have to submit to the IRS to avoid problems with claiming such status.

It must be pretty easy since some of them live in multi million dollar homes on some of that "tax free" money.

Sometimes yes. Not always.

I know you are talking about people like Jim and Tammy Baker, but the pastor at a large central church makes a pretty good living.

Churches are just like anything else, the better you are, the better the church you are assigned. I have been to churches where the pastor was really good and some where they weren't. The church members do what it takes to keep the better ones where they can.

Maybe pastor Marc can fill us in on how all that works if he is affiliated with a major church. Meaning, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, whatever. I think the Methodists as an example rotate their pastors every 3-4 years no matter what. I know the pastor at 1st Pres here was there maybe 35 years or more.

Not true. Pastors pay taxes just like everyone else. Well, not quite like everyone else, they get a double wammy as they also have to pay self-employment tax.

It certainly does not hold true for all, or even most pastors and ministers. Most live in a reasonable home and a middle class existence. Smaller, poorer churches even provide their ministers with a lower standard of living that that. I certainly didn't intend my comments as a one size fits all by any leans.

My comments were more trying to show how the way these laws are written for religious institutions have so many loopholes that they can and are often abused.

FATE, It wasn't so much the pastors salaries I was trying to address. It's that people like Joel Osteen can build and live in a multi million dollar home, buy extravagant cars as well as other properties and evade paying any taxes on it by putting it in the name of the church.

Well, I'm almost 38 and I feel like I have yet to use my brain, so I've only got two more years to get there.

Ah, gotcha.

I meant more about the books gathering cobwebs.

In the Catholic Church, to get married in the church you need to be a Catholic in good standing. Part of that includes regular church attendance. You can demonstrate that by using the donation envelopes they mail you. They know that you are attending and donating. Even if you donate an envelope that is empty.

This is also the 21st century. It would be easy enough to put a few computers at the entry and have people sign in. Or any number of other ways.

The unintended consequence is that someone would start a church and write stupid crap into their doctrine and allow people to donate X amount of dollars on line each year to be a congregation member. Which got me thinking. Can a claim a religious exemption against paying federal taxes? It's against my religion and if you force me to pay them you are discriminating against me. Yea, I know that is a ridiculous example but similar in validity to a lot of other claimed religious exemptions.

Making a list of who attends church and who doesn't by the federal government would never pass any challenge, nor should it.

Not the government keeping track, the church keeps track and you decide if you want them to confirm with the government that you are a member

It's a non starter Jest....it won't happen.

I don't know about that at all. I'm a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ. I have some very strong religious convictions. Yet I'm not a fan of organized religion per say.

Does that mean that just because I don't regularly attend church that my religious beliefs and convictions don't count? Do I have to join an organized religion for my beliefs to hold meaning or grant me my rights to to follow my religious beliefs as I see fit?

Believe me, I certainly understand how people can lie about it and claim they have religious beliefs they do not have. I do. But we have many issues we could say that about. Does the fact that someone else may lie about their religious beliefs mean people that feel as you do in regards to "proving my religion" have the right to use that as an excuse to infringe on my religious beliefs just because I do not regularly attend church?

There can be other ways. That was just an off the cuff thought. Not going to try to comenup with a solution because it is an exercise in futility.

I get what you are saying but there should be some criteria. Most of this is a bunch of BS. If you refuse to go to war over religious beliefs, okay. I can see that. Most religions are against killing. How many religions say getting vaccinated is against their beliefs?

What stops me from getting a speeding ticket and saying that my religious beliefs are that driving fast praises my lord and god so I am being persecuted for my religious beliefs?

*scratching my head* I searched all through the bible and can't find "Thou shalt not get any vaccines" anywhere.

Its not about being against vaccinations. Its about only letting certain things enter your body. Ask Jews about kosher, or Muslims about halal.

I don't know any jewish folks who are against getting vaccinated. Now I don't know about Muslims as I have never talked to any of them about the subject.

Or a Jehovah Witness not allowing blood transfusions.

When I was in medical sales, quite a few surgeons would not operate and "pass along" patients that were a Jehovah Witness due to liability concerns if something went wrong and the patient had written notice blood transfusions were not permitted for religious reasons.

There was one surgeon that did not have a problem operating on a Jehovah Witness, coincidentally, he also hired a Jehovah Witness as his P.A. His comment to me, "they're the perfect employee, you never have to worry about them calling off around the holidays or for birthdays." I didn't know what to say in the moment.

Sorry, Milk... but that quote reads like something I might find at The Onion.


Sorry you had to experience that.

I used to know some Amish that were anti vaxxers but after their misfortunes most of them that I know anyway get the shots.

Hey, I still collected my commission from the hardware and allograft implanted during surgery! :-) Definitely, Onion-like!

I think people would be amazed or appalled at what is said and what goes on in an operating room. Or, which patient would be recommended for surgery vs. passed on to pain management because they have garbage insurance and there is little profit in treating them.

Sobering, to say the least.

What criteria? I do not go to church on a regular basis but I do have my religious beliefs which are protected by the constitution. So exactly what criteria do you feel I should have to answer to in order to "prove that to you"?



There are religions who do not believe that modern medicine should be used at all. Some feel it should only be used as a last resort. Some have restrictions on what you should let enter your body.

I liken it to how I feel about white supremacy. I hate everything they stand for. Yet at the same time I uphold their right to free speech and freedom of assembly just like the people and groups I do agree with. Do you know why? Because if we allow people to infringe on the rights of those we disagree with, how long will it be before people disagree with me and use those same excuses to infringe upon my rights?

For the record my religious convictions support getting the vaccine and the use of modern medicine. If one believes in God I feel they must believe that all of these medical advances are nothing more than a blessing we have at our disposal to help make life better for us.

I believe after all of the evidence, that refusing to get the vaccine is stupid and based on emotions and misinformation not based in reality. I think it not only risks your own health to refuse to get the vaccine but it risks everyone whom you may come in contact with.

In short I don't believe God rewards stupidity.



This wasn't intended to be serious was it?

I wouldn't be amazed nor appalled. It's probably almost exactly as I would expect. It's always the expected results by me when your healthcare system puts profits over people.

This wasn't intended to be serious was it? [/quote]

The speeding ticket exemption was a ridiculous example to demonstrate the need for some kind of criteria. I don't know what that criteria should be, but without some criteria what prevents someone from making that argument? How can you prove that that is not my religious belief?

What if I was a car fanatic? I had a car and driver magazine subscription, went to car shows regularly...
If I was to say that I worshipped cars as gods and my religious belief is that if I own a car and don't drive it fast to please it then when I die I won't go to heaven.

You would laugh at me right?
I would ask why are you mocking my religion?
Explain why that could not be a religious exemption (other than I would feel really stupid trying to make that argument)
Explain how that would be different from any other religious belief

The over-arching thought was that we should have religious exemptions, but some sort of check in place to make sure it's not abused. It's a great idea but executing properly is the problem.

Thanks for clearly stating what I have apparently failed to do in epic proportions

The fact that it could be "used against me" to abuse my religious beliefs is a bridge you have so far refused to cross. I've shown you how the example you previously used would encroach on my religious freedoms yet the only response thus far has been "yeah but".

If you could show me a reasonable example that would not infringe on my religious beliefs there would be grounds for a conversation or debate. Thus far you've tried to get me to make your point for you.

For you see, as much as you wish for measures to be taken for someone to "prove their religion" because it might otherwise be abused, it seems that you can't seem to see that your proposal would abuse my rights.

I am saying there needs to be some kind of declination between a religious belief and a personal belief. How to make that distinction is for the philosophers and clerics who have the time to devote to that, not me. Just because I don't have an answer for how to do that doesn't mean one couldn't be found.

"The fact that it could be "used against me" to abuse my religious beliefs is a bridge you have so far refused to cross"

I don't follow what you are getting at?

I've seen your suggestions but they would all fall within the parameters of infringing on my rights.

Maybe there is some middle ground that can be found as you suggest. I just haven't seen anyone come up with something that seems to be a fair way to uphold my religious freedoms. There's a lot of people like me out here. We have our religious beliefs but simply aren't fans of organized religion. I think we count too.

You seemed to help clear things up when you said that would be best left to other people than yourself and that you're simply looking for some middle ground.

1st, I am in the same boat as you. I have very strong religious beliefs but I am not a fan of organized religion. And I have strong feelings about what my religious beliefs are and what my personal beliefs are. But it's clear that a substantial percentage of people who claim religious exemption are not doing so for religious reasons but rather because "I just don't want to". I feel there needs to be some kind of line. People can't just do anything they want because of their religion. I was speeding because of my religious beliefs, I robbed that bank because of my religious beliefs, I killed that guy because of my religious beliefs... Yes, those are ridiculous examples but without some kind of definition about what qualifies and what doesn't how do you exclude those things?

My initial criteria was an off the top of my head thought.