Question of the day
Wednesday, Apr 10, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From 2015…
Families seeking a religious exemption next year, or transferring after Oct. 16, will have to complete a certificate explaining their objection on religious grounds before kindergarten, 6th and 9th grades. That certificate also must include the signature of a doctor, attesting that he or she counseled the parents about the risks of skipping vaccines.
How effective the new law will be in reducing the number of unvaccinated children isn’t clear, since how schools define a religious objection isn’t clear either. The Illinois State Board of Education tracked more than 13,000 such exemptions in 2013, said spokeswoman Megan Griffin. While the objection doesn’t have to be based on religious doctrine, it can’t be based simply on personal preference either, she said.
* IDPH…
The certificate also reflects the parents or legal guardians understanding that their child may be excluded from school in the case of a vaccine-preventable disease outbreak or exposure. Parents
* Sun-Times editorial…
The evidence keeps piling up that Illinois must toughen its law on vaccine exemptions.
In dozens of schools in the Chicago area and in hundreds across the state, vaccination rates are below what experts recommend to prevent the spread of measles, according to a new analysis by WBEZ.
According to experts, at least 98% of students in a school should be vaccinated for their own protection — and to provide group protection for children who, for legitimate medical reasons, can’t be vaccinated for the highly contagious disease.
But WBEZ found that at 67 Chicago-area schools, and 514 schools across Illinois, vaccination rates topped out at 95% or lower. At four Chicago schools, fewer than 50% of children had proof of vaccination.
* The Question: Should Illinois eliminate all non-medical childhood vaccine exemptions? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
survey service
- Montrose - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:25 am:
It’s a basic public health issue. You can avoid all the medical interventions you want if it doesn’t put the people around you at risk. Not vaccinating puts the people around you at risk.
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:25 am:
Voted no. I’m 100 percent pro-vaccine — all my kids are vaccinated — but I have very strong reservations about government compelling injections of weakened viruses into humans.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:27 am:
I’d like to see 100% vaccination but I’m not sure we can eliminate the religous exception without violating the 1st Ammendment. Voted no for that reason.
- NomChompsky - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:29 am:
Not only should we eliminate those exemptions, doctors who do not counsel or do their best to vaccinate children should probably be considered in violation of their oath. The oath says first do no harm. Allowing people to walk around liable to spread preventable disease to others is doing harm.
Either we eliminate the exemptions, or do everything we possibly can to put as much friction between non-vaccinated people and normal participation in society as we can. That also means no public school, no public jobs, etc.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:30 am:
While I voted no due to 1A concerns, I am all for making refusal difficult no extra curricular activities, no daycare, etc.
- Fixer - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:31 am:
Voted yes. Facebook posts and faulty research does not replace years of medical training and experience.
- Glengarry - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:31 am:
Voted yep. It’s common sense and religion doesn’t trump public safety.
- Ambrose Chase - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:32 am:
Mandatory vaccinations, no exceptions. The right to make sure my kid remains healthy outweighs any argument for religious exemption that can be cooked up. Sorry not sorry.
- Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:34 am:
Voted yes. Not being vaccinated endangers others.
My family has 3 members with compromised immune systems. We can and do get vaccinated. But herd immunity still helps protect us.
- El Conquistador - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:36 am:
Yes. This bizarre age of utter ignorance needs to end.
Somehow this country has fallen prey to fear, ignorance and manipulation by fools.
- Jocko - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:37 am:
==complete a certificate explaining their objection on religious grounds==
I’d go a step further and ask a church elder to endorse the family’s decision. To my knowledge, no organized religion has a prohibition to vaccines…even Islam/Judaism say pork-based vaccines don’t constitute consumption.
- Yup! - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:37 am:
Voted yes. Currently 3 states, California, Mississippi, and West Virginia do not allow for a religious exemption. The Mississippi law has been on the books since 1983. with Mississippi as an example, I do not think eliminating the religious exemption would violate the 1st Amendment.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx
- DuPage Saint - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:37 am:
Voted no because I think religious exemptions should be allowed. And I really really think everyone should strongly be urged to be vaccinated but if your religion prevents iso be it
- Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:38 am:
If you don’t want to vaccinate your children, please prepare them for being shunned.
- ??? - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:40 am:
Jocko:
https://www.vumc.org/health-wellness/news-resource-articles/immunizations-and-religion
- MakePoliticsCoolAgain - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:41 am:
This is a public health crisis around the country. The amount of misinformation on the internet about this topic is terrifying. The only responsible step for the legislature to undertake is to legally eliminate all non-medical exemptions for vaccines.
Hat tip to Mr. Miller for covering this epidemic since it took hold in Washington State over the winter.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:42 am:
Yes. I don’t think there’s a First Amendment right to be Typhoid Mary. The public has a right to protection and the government has a duty to provide it.
- OutHereInTheMiddle - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:44 am:
Living safely in concentrated populations (ie, urban areas) requires that some decisions be made for the public good. These include basic sanitation requirements, water treatment, and vaccinations to prevent the spread of commonly communicable diseases.
- I Miss Bentohs - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:46 am:
As someone that is strongly supportive of keeping gov out of religion, even I voted yes. Vaccines are a little bit about your health but more importantly to me, it is about the unhealthy that are around you. For some people, getting measles means a death sentence.
- Groucho - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:47 am:
Voted No because I think religious exemptions are proper. But you should have to explain your request for a religious exemption. For example, I am a catholic, and as far as I know there is no religious reason a catholic should be granted an exemption.
- dbk - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:48 am:
Yes, immunization against contagious diseases is a public health issue, not one of personal beliefs/preferences/biases.
Children who have not been vaccinated should be required to be home schooled, not participate in group activities with peers, etc.
I’m repeating what others above stated, but apparently it will have to be repeated ad nauseam to sink in.
- HorseShoe - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:49 am:
Voted yes, I’m not going to let people who are completely wrong on the issue put the people I love at risk just to cater to their feelings. Don’t like it? Illinois is great for Home schooling I’m told.
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:51 am:
=== doctors who do not counsel or do their best to vaccinate children should probably be considered in violation of their oath. ===
I read an article or watched a video (can’t remember) with a pediatrician who said she has found a lot of success in treading lightly on the subject and very gently pushing for vaccination on each visit. She claims that a good number of parents do come around and fully or partially vaccinate their children as opposed to hard-line doctors that won’t even allow non-vaccinated children into their practice (which is also understandable) or push hard.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:51 am:
Voted yes. Will point to the elimination of 2 scourge diseases which resulted in the disability and deaths of millions - polio and smallpox.
- A guy - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:53 am:
“All” is a standard that leaves no exception any time, anywhere for any reason. It’s a tad too stringent.
That said, Vaccinations are vital and somewhere between 99-100% of children should be vaccinated for public health. I’m leery of many of these “religious” exemptions, but not completely closed-minded to an exceptional argument in a very small number of exceptional cases.
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:54 am:
I’m softly backpedaling a bit on my no vote as I did not fully understand the question — I thought the question was related to compelled vaccination, not simply preventing unvaccinated children from attending school.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:54 am:
Voted yes, I get the 1A thing but it should be about as hard to get as using it to get out of the draft, there should be some explaination of why with questions.
- Scamp640 - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 11:57 am:
Because science.
- truthteller - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 12:05 pm:
protecting the public well being is the first rule of government. NO unvaccinated child should be able to attend public school and LIABILITY should be palced on parents of unvaccinated kids.
- Aaron B - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 12:11 pm:
Voted yes because public health and herd immunity is more important than something someone read on facebook which pretty much all traces back to a discredited study.
- Earnest - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 12:21 pm:
I voted yes. These children should not be placed at risk of preventable disease because of their parents, nor should the children of others.
- lake county democrat - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 12:22 pm:
Voted no for the religious exemptions reason. It’s fine if you make the exemption strict and demand proof, but if the government is going to provide schools, it can’t deny a space to a kid because of the parents’ honestly held beliefs.
- Perrid - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 12:25 pm:
I voted yes. Opponents yelling about how it infringes on personal freedoms are correct, it does, I just don’t care. You aren’t just putting yourself or your child at risk, you are putting everyone at risk, most especially those with medical concerns preventing them from being vaccinated. Your right to believe conspiracy theories doesn’t trump other people’s right not to get sick and maybe even die.
- 37B - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 12:29 pm:
When your religious beliefs threaten public health, they must be trumped.
- TheState - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 12:34 pm:
Voted yes. There is no First Amendment issue, as Supreme Court precedent indicates that it is within the police powers of the state to compel vaccination (see Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, upholding a mandatory smallpox vaccine law). The US Supreme Court has not directly considered religious exemption in light of mandatory vaccine laws, although other courts, such as the Supreme Court of New Jersey have.
They found that religious freedom can be curtailed for public health reasons. They wrote that “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease…”
The Supreme Court likely would not strike down mandatory vaccination without religious exemptions. In Employment Division vs. Smith, the US Supreme Court held that facially neutral statutes are constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause, even when they burden religion. In this case, they used a rational basis test to deny peyote use for religious reasons, saying that the prohibition on controlled substances did not require strict scrutiny as it was broad and neutral with respect to citizen compliance.
This isn’t a religious issue, it is a matter of public safety, and no personal justification (religious or one that is just misinformed as to the science) should be allowed in the face of potential epidemics.
- SSL - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 1:00 pm:
My own view is you can’t claim it is your religious freedom to knowingly endanger others. Voted yes.
- Jocko - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 1:12 pm:
==because of the parents’ honestly held beliefs==
…they obtained from Facebook, NOT religion.
Cite me a organized religion that forbids vaccination.
- d. p. gumby - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 1:26 pm:
w/ the right wing weaponized 1st amendment, everything is religious and can be imposed on the rest of the world–religious narcissisim.
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 1:33 pm:
=== Cite me a organized religion that forbids vaccination. ===
Per this article: https://www.vumc.org/health-wellness/news-resource-articles/immunizations-and-religion
-Christian Scientists
-Dutch Reformed Congregationists
-Faith Tabernacle
-Church of the First Born
-Faith Assembly
-End Time Ministries
Again, I’m 100 percent pro-vaccine, just sayin’.
- Uncle Ernie - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 1:38 pm:
I am 100% pro vaccine. I was vaccinated in the 50’s and 60’s. My kids were vaccinated. I remember the entire small town I grew up in going to the school to be vaccinated for something. If you are going to live in a free society, your beliefs are your own until they negatively impact the greater good.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 1:52 pm:
Voted yes. No constitutional right is absolute & all can be curtailed for public safety. As Scalia stated in Heller, 2A doesn’t mean you can carry a weapon everywhere (say a child custody hearing). Same with 1A; aren’t people prosecuted for withholding medical care from their children / polygamy?
- SAP - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 1:56 pm:
Yes. The First Amendment does not give you the right to risk my life.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 2:05 pm:
===In Employment Division vs. Smith
Yep. You got there first. It’s highly unlikely the Supreme Court would invalidate a law based on religion. Religious beliefs do not trump legitimate police powers exercised neutrally in regards to religious beliefs.
Most of the religious belief claims are nonsense anyway and not based in actual religious belief. There just aren’t that many Christian Scientists out there.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 2:12 pm:
-=–Again, I’m 100 percent pro-vaccine, just sayin’.
While these are examples (though small numbers and not nearly as many as people claiming religious exemptions) we also do not allow them to deny medical treatment for minors in most states. If you read up on the Followers, for example, it’s clear to me that they are engaging in child neglect.
- Shanks - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 2:24 pm:
No. Still believe in the first amendment….but, schools still have the right to accept/deny your child(ren) if they pose a reasonable risk to the population. So, unless you wish to homeschool your children or find a private school that would accept your children, vaccinate your kids.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 2:52 pm:
Shanks -
Public schools have to provide certain “programs” to home schooled kids (band, clubs, athletics). Would you make that conditional on vaccination? Could public schools refuse athletic competitions with private schools that don’t mandate vaccination?
- Denise - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 3:04 pm:
Again another way people are harmed in the name of religion. See a pattern here people?
- Nameless - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 3:29 pm:
I voted yes, if you don’t want to vaccinate your kid, you shouldn’t be able to send them to public school.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 3:33 pm:
Votes yes, based mostly on this anecdotal experience - my brother in law and his wife refused to vaccinate their child because they (mostly his wife) swore it would cause autism. My nephew is now 4, still unvaccinated, and was recently diagnosed with autism. Not sure if they’re going to vaccinate him now. They should, but it’s usually impossible to get people to admit they made a parenting mistake.
- Mama - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 4:13 pm:
I Voted No: People/children with an autoimmune disease can not get vaccines. It would be hazardous to their.
- NorthsideNoMore - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 4:13 pm:
Voting YES …Check in with the CDC see what the reemergent rates of diseases that were long thought to be done around these United States is.
- Chicago_Downstater - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 4:15 pm:
Like what a lot of the other folks are saying, it’s about herd immunity for me. Kids that can’t get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons shouldn’t be put at risk just because some folks believe in a repeatedly debunked conspiracy theory.
- theCardinal - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 4:19 pm:
Yes… note to Anti-Vaxers, your champion one Jen McCarthy is a HS educated stripper, even when presented with numerous medical studies still claimed she was right. Oh and she self diagnosed and curred her child of autism?
- CardsFan - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 7:23 pm:
Voted yes. For all the reasons already mentioned above.
- cc - Wednesday, Apr 10, 19 @ 10:37 pm:
Yes vote. Adults around children all the time should also check with their own doctor to see if time to be re-vaccinated for the safety of children and for self.
- p'nut - Thursday, Apr 11, 19 @ 12:42 pm:
Voted Yes. If they want an exception that is not medical and there is an outbreak they should take the responsibility for educating their child to meet the state education requirements