The United States vaccination policies
The United States vaccination policies are part of the government’s health strategy aimed at eradicating infectious diseases on a large scale to develop herd immunity for better health outcomes in society. All the 50 American states have legislations that offer guidelines and specifications for vaccinations, especially among school-going children. These laws also provide general exemptions for children with selected medical problems. However, specific states have different regulations when it comes to exclusions on the ground of religious and philosophical ideologies. This paper presents a discussion of three distinct vaccination lawsuits that offer various claims against federal vaccination policies. The mandatory vaccination laws reflect on the government’s interest in public health and social welfare as it places herd immunity before the freedom of religion for the greater good.
Brown Vs. Smith was a vaccination lawsuit brought forward by a group of parents seeking to overturn the mandatory immunization legislation in California. The case presented before the California Court of Appeal after the previous dismissal by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County that affirmed that the mandatory vaccination operated within the government police powers and did not affect the defendant’s freedom to religion. In the class action, Sharon Brown represented the group as the main plaintiff. In contrast, Karen Smith, the director, served other members of the California Department of Public Health as the defendant. The plaintiff presented claims against the senate bill no 277 on mandatory vaccination, stating that it went against their constitutional rights to freedom of religion. They also claimed that the treatments were unsafe, unreliable, and associated with adverse health outcomes. The defendant objected to the claims that were sustained by the court without a room of alteration.
The court decision read by Grimes J held that the mandatory immunization statue acted within the government police powers over the members of the states. Therefore, it did not violate the religious rights of plaintiff found within the constitution. The court decided unanimously to reject the claims that vaccination presented adverse health consequences claiming that treatment presented itself as the only way in which the government would realize herd immunity for members of the society. The court thus rejected the claim that vaccines were medical experiments that were unsafe and unreliable. The court explained that the plaintiff claims were simply a matter of philosophical ideas that were not backed up by any religious evidence.
Love Vs. The State is another vaccination lawsuit brought forward in a class action by parents and children against the mandatory immunization statue by the California state. In the case, Torrey Love served as the representative plaintiff, while the department of Education served as the primary representative for the defendants. The plaintiff claims that Senate Bill 277 violated their constitutional right to privacy, public Education, and religious freedom. Ideally, the plaintiff argued that law was a privacy violation as students were required to present their personal medical information before admissions to public schools that present parents’ unnecessary costs and denied the children body autonomy. They also claimed that mandatory vaccines took away both the student’s and parent’s right to have honor and power over their child’s bodies.
Court decision presented by Judge Robbie held that that mandatory vaccination was within the states’ police power. The court also explained that vaccination statues did not violate privacy rights as the state interest in protecting the social welfare of the society by providing quality healthcare was more significant than the personal rights of individually developed from religious beliefs. The court also affirmed that the law did not violate the people’s rights to attend public school. The court claimed that the government could abolish a public health concern over personal interests and that medication checks were essential to protecting the welfare of the students.
F.F ex Rel. Y.F. v. State is a vaccination lawsuit brought forward as a class action by parents against New York State. In the case, sixty-four parents served as the plaintiff proposing the abolishing of the mandatory vaccination placed by the defendant, the State of New York. The plaintiff composed of parents from different religious affiliations and others with none collectively claimed that the mandatory vaccinations went against their constitutional rights to religious freedom, equal protection, and free speech. In the case, the ruling aimed at deciding whether to uphold a preliminary injunction present against New York’s amendment of Public Health Law 2164 that will remove religion exemption from the vaccination policy.
The courts held the decision to eliminate all non-medical exemptions to mandatory vaccination, explaining that compulsory vaccination did not violate free exercise, equal protection, and free speech rights of parents. The court placed the vaccination policy above the constitution’s right to religious freedom as a matter of social welfare. The court considered that health and safety concerns for the general public are more significant than personal interests to practice religious ideologies.
The three cases presented above reveals that courts gave providence of quality health over personal religious liberties. The majority of the states in American removed the religious exemption from vaccination laws following concerns over public health. The court decisions support the 1796 discovery of vaccines as the best method for herd immunity and eradication of disease epidermis in society. The court believes that states should prioritize health care and put in place legislation that protects the general public from suffering preventable death instead of placing providence over personal religious belief.