Vaccine Discussion Master Thread

[jj1000]

So at what point does freedom of religion end? I'm asking seriously.

CM probably also believes that if there is a law outlawing religion they shouldn't make a religious exception.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

So at what point does freedom of religion end? I'm asking seriously.

Not sure but I would say safety and health issues are possibilities.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

CM probably also believes that if there is a law outlawing religion they shouldn't make a religious exception.

Today must be Friday. 

[Achas Veachas]

So at what point does freedom of religion end? I'm asking seriously.

Not sure but I would say safety and health issues are possibilities.

I would tend to agree, if certain religious practices were found to definitely have adverse health and/or safety issues for the public or for minors who can't legally consent, I would say religious exemptions shouldn't be allowed.

[Yehuda57]

I would tend to agree, if certain religious practices were found to definitely have adverse health and/or safety issues for the public or for minors who can't legally consent, I would say religious exemptions shouldn't be allowed.

So only for the public? What about one's own child - can one endanger him/her based on religious custom?

And in the case of circumcision, where there are no universally accepted dangers OR benefits. Should you be given a religious exemption to mutilate the body of an unconsenting child?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Remember the bill we are talking about you can have it both ways. Homeschool your children.

[Achas Veachas]

So only for the public? What about one's own child - can one endanger him/her based on religious custom?

Did you read my post?

And in the case of circumcision, where there are no universally accepted dangers OR benefits. Should you be given a religious exemption to mutilate the body of an unconsenting child?

As long as there are no proven dangers I would say religious exemptions should be allowed, those who follow the religion believe that the religious benefits are enough to justify the "mutilation" concerns..

[ChaimMoskowitz]

And in the case of circumcision, where there are no universally accepted dangers OR benefits. Should you be given a religious exemption to mutilate the body of an unconsenting child?

No but I would not consider circumcision the same as mutilation.

[Yehuda57]

Did you read my post?
As long as there are no proven dangers I would say religious exemptions should be allowed, those who follow the religion believe that the religious benefits are enough to justify the "mutilation" concerns..

Yes I did read it. And, as stated, I want very badly to agree with you and take your stance. I'm just pointing out that it is not so ridiculous to worry about a slippery slope in this instance. There are fine lines, and once freedom of religion is eroded somewhat, it gets easier to chip away.

Based on your comments, you would effectively be pro metzitzah b'peh being illegal, as there has been a proven public health risk. (I guess that would depend on how you classify "public") Am I wrong?

[Achas Veachas]

Based on your comments, you would effectively be pro metzitzah b'peh being illegal, as there has been a proven public health risk. (I guess that would depend on how you classify "public") Am I wrong?

IF it would be proven that MBP poses a health risk I (as well as every Rov and Mohel I know) would be pro making it illegal. Such a risk has not been proven yet.

Please let's not derail this thread into MBP though.

[aygart]

There have been all sorts of laws throughout history which were ostensibly for "important societal needs" while their entire purpose was against various religious laws. Judaism has experienced much of this with laws against ritual slaughter and circumcision and other religious items which persist to this day even in the free world. I am sure other religions have experience similar laws as well. It is only due to the strict scrutiny which the courts apply to such rules under the US constitution that these are not prevalent here.

[thaber]

Relevant to many of the issues raised http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-could-california-s-proposed-vaccine-law-be-unconstitutional-20150625-story.html

[henche]

Relevant to many of the issues raised http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-could-california-s-proposed-vaccine-law-be-unconstitutional-20150625-story.html

It's sunday, so I'll give some relevant background.

The general rule used to be that in order for a law to be able to infringe on religious liberty, the law had to be "narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest."  "Narrowly tailored" means the law is not over or under inclusive--that is, that it addresses exactly the state interest and only the state interest (so if the state interest is against burning kids to molech, it can't say "no molech fires" (overinclusive) and it can't apply only to kid under 5 (underinclusive).  "Compelling state interest" means very important.

However, as we know, the supreme court likes to make guidelines, and then likes to just do whatever it wants in the next case regardless of the guidelines.  So when the case came up that Native Americans use peyote in their religious rituals, the supreme court couldn't allow that because they don't care about Native Americans' religions.  So they made a new rule that if the law is facially neutral, then you don't need to be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.  Facially neutral means that the law was made not specifically aimed at a religious practice, but just to apply to everyone.  So if you make a law that peyote is illegal, and you weren't thinking about native americans, then they don't get an exemption.  Law professors like to say pshat that if the law is facially neutral, then you'll probably be able to get an exemption by lobbying.  Of course that doesn't always work, especially if you are native american.

Applying that here (which may or may not be useful), if they had originally just not made an exemption, it would have been fine just like the peyote. But since they made an exemption and are now taking it away with a law that directly speaks to religious practice, I think you'd apply the narrowly tailored to compelling state interest test.  So is it narrowly tailored? Hard to say that ALL the vaccines are a compelling state interest, all of a sudden.  Maybe the TDP, maybe the MMR, maybe a few others. Tetanus? Hepatitis B? It seems overinclusive.

[thaber]

Thank you

[ChaimMoskowitz]

It's sunday, so I'll give some relevant background.

The general rule used to be that in order for a law to be able to infringe on religious liberty, the law had to be "narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest."  "Narrowly tailored" means the law is not over or under inclusive--that is, that it addresses exactly the state interest and only the state interest (so if the state interest is against burning kids to molech, it can't say "no molech fires" (overinclusive) and it can't apply only to kid under 5 (underinclusive).  "Compelling state interest" means very important.

However, as we know, the supreme court likes to make guidelines, and then likes to just do whatever it wants in the next case regardless of the guidelines.  So when the case came up that Native Americans use peyote in their religious rituals, the supreme court couldn't allow that because they don't care about Native Americans' religions.  So they made a new rule that if the law is facially neutral, then you don't need to be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.  Facially neutral means that the law was made not specifically aimed at a religious practice, but just to apply to everyone.  So if you make a law that peyote is illegal, and you weren't thinking about native americans, then they don't get an exemption.  Law professors like to say pshat that if the law is facially neutral, then you'll probably be able to get an exemption by lobbying.  Of course that doesn't always work, especially if you are native american.

Applying that here (which may or may not be useful), if they had originally just not made an exemption, it would have been fine just like the peyote. But since they made an exemption and are now taking it away with a law that directly speaks to religious practice, I think you'd apply the narrowly tailored to compelling state interest test.  So is it narrowly tailored? Hard to say that ALL the vaccines are a compelling state interest, all of a sudden.  Maybe the TDP, maybe the MMR, maybe a few others. Tetanus? Hepatitis B? It seems overinclusive.

How about circumcision? This does not only apply to Judaism. If they banned this practice there could be no religious exemption since it applies to everyone (facially neutral) or is my simple mind not following this? 

[henche]

How about circumcision? This does not only apply to Judaism. If they banned this practice there could be no religious exemption since it applies to everyone (facially neutral) or is my simple mind not following this? 

Based on current precedent, it seems that if they banned circumcision generally, for reasons unrelated to religion, that would be fine.  Your mind is following it precisely.

[elit]

It's sunday, so I'll give some relevant background.

The general rule used to be that in order for a law to be able to infringe on religious liberty, the law had to be "narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest."  "Narrowly tailored" means the law is not over or under inclusive--that is, that it addresses exactly the state interest and only the state interest (so if the state interest is against burning kids to molech, it can't say "no molech fires" (overinclusive) and it can't apply only to kid under 5 (underinclusive).  "Compelling state interest" means very important.

However, as we know, the supreme court likes to make guidelines, and then likes to just do whatever it wants in the next case regardless of the guidelines.  So when the case came up that Native Americans use peyote in their religious rituals, the supreme court couldn't allow that because they don't care about Native Americans' religions.  So they made a new rule that if the law is facially neutral, then you don't need to be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.  Facially neutral means that the law was made not specifically aimed at a religious practice, but just to apply to everyone.  So if you make a law that peyote is illegal, and you weren't thinking about native americans, then they don't get an exemption.  Law professors like to say pshat that if the law is facially neutral, then you'll probably be able to get an exemption by lobbying.  Of course that doesn't always work, especially if you are native american.

Applying that here (which may or may not be useful), if they had originally just not made an exemption, it would have been fine just like the peyote. But since they made an exemption and are now taking it away with a law that directly speaks to religious practice, I think you'd apply the narrowly tailored to compelling state interest test.  So is it narrowly tailored? Hard to say that ALL the vaccines are a compelling state interest, all of a sudden.  Maybe the TDP, maybe the MMR, maybe a few others. Tetanus? Hepatitis B? It seems overinclusive.

Wasn't there another ruling after the peyote ruling that seemed to contradict or limit that ruling?

[henche]

Wasn't there another ruling after the peyote ruling that seemed to contradict or limit that ruling?

You're talking about the cubans slaughtering goats in florida case?

I hold that there were no real chiddushim in that. I incorporate that idea into smith.

[elit]

You're talking about the cubans slaughtering goats in florida case?

I hold that there were no real chiddushim in that. I incorporate that idea into smith.

Im not that informed on this topic. Just heard a speech on it recently and i thought i recall the speaker saying something like that

[henche]

Im not that informed on this topic. Just heard a speech on it recently and i thought i recall the speaker saying something like that

Yah, Lukumi.