Supreme Court rejects challenge to Connecticut law that eliminated religious vaccination exemption - eviltoast

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a 2021 Connecticut law that eliminated the state’s longstanding religious exemption from childhood immunization requirements for schools, colleges and day care facilities.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the contentious law. A lower court judge had earlier dismissed the lawsuit challenging the law, which drew protests at the state Capitol.

Connecticut law requires students to receive certain immunizations before enrolling in school, allowing some medical exemptions. Prior to 2021, students also could seek religious exemptions. Lawmakers ended the religious exemption over concerns that an uptick in exemption requests was coupled with a decline in vaccination rates in some schools.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    For anyone else who’s confused by the headline: This means there isn’t a religious exemption to vaccines in Connecticut.

    The bad guys lost. Yay!

      • ilovededyoupiggy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’ve noticed that about a ton of SCOTUS-related headlines lately. They rejected a challenge to a lawsuit challenging the rejection of the appeal that failed to reject the rejection of their earlier rejected appeal. Takes ten minutes to decipher which side actually won.

      • darharrison@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Every article about a SCOTUS decision from this week had a title that was at least this brain-breakingly bad, it’s gotta stop…

  • DevCat@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    In a civilized country, this would not be a political question, but, rather, a medical one.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      5 months ago

      In a civilized country, this would not be a political question, but, rather, a medical one.

      You’re talking about abortion, right?

      No, it’s birth control, isn’t it?

      No, I’ve got it this time- you’re talking about trans care!

  • Kvoth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Here’s my thing about religious exemption, and my parents used it for me, because they didn’t believe in it 30 years ago. Give me one religious text that actually says you shouldn’t vaccinate. Just one. You don’t have it? Bye bye.

    • resonate6279@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Just to clear the air, the objection tends to be on the grounds that certain medicines/vaccines are tested on stem cells harvested from an aborted baby. While there are other objections, this is the most common one I have run into.

      If these individuals are consistent in their objections (avoid tylonel, Advil, and any other meds tested in these stem cells) Then I believe we should respect their religious convictions. But, consistentcy is key here, you can’t pick and choose.

      We either believe that people have the right to have different beliefs than others, or we don’t. We also can’t be inconsistent with that ideology. But we can absolutely challenge them when being inconsistent, i.e., if one religious symbol is allowed, any competing ones that someone desires to place must also be allowed.

      • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Um, no.

        Letting yourself and your family be potential carriers of disease because your invisible sky daddy says abortion bad - which in the Bible is not the case - is forcing your beliefs on others.

        You don’t want to vaccinate your kids to help protect the community at large? Then don’t be surprised when society rejects your dumb selfish ass. Homeschool and wear masks out in public if you really believe.

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Logical math :
    Supreme Court (-1) x (-1) to Connecticut law that (-1) religious vaccination (-1)
    = =
    S.Court ( -1x-1x-1x-1 = +1 = approuves) vaccine

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a 2021 Connecticut law that eliminated the state’s longstanding religious exemption from childhood immunization requirements for schools, colleges and day care facilities.

    “This is the end of the road to a challenge to Connecticut’s lifesaving and fully lawful vaccine requirements,” Democratic Attorney General William Tong said in a statement.

    Brian Festa, vice president and co-founder for the group We The Patriots USA Inc., a lead plaintiff in the case, called the decision “disappointing” but said it’s “not the end of the road for us in our fight to win back religious exemptions for schoolchildren.”

    The group — which has challenged other vaccination laws, including for COVID-19 — had argued along with several parents that Connecticut violated religious freedom protections by removing the exemption.

    We The Patriots USA also has an ongoing federal lawsuit filed on behalf of a Christian preschool and daycare that’s challenging Connecticut’s vaccine mandate on constitutional grounds.

    “It is our practice at We The Patriots USA to battle on many fronts simultaneously, and to never put all of our eggs in one basket,” Festa said, calling the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday “one setback, but far from a total defeat.”


    The original article contains 440 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 53%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!