by In preparation for oral arguments, lawyers for four women who are federally contesting California’s rejection of religiously motivated exemptions from vaccination requirements for children’s admittance to public schools submitted documents to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.
Vigilance is required to safeguard our First Amendment rights, Murrieta-basedSupporters of Freedom and FaithThe case was discussed by President Robert Tyler. On behalf of our brave clients, we are honored to take this battle all the way to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The plaintiff’s civil rights case, which sought an injunction against the state’s implementation of Senate Bill 277, was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff in San Diego in March due to the bill’s omission of a personal belief exemption from the vaccination schedule, which was in effect from 1961 to 2016.
The plaintiffs declared their intention to appeal right away.
The appellants and state attorneys are still seeking a court date to present their case before the federal panel after filing their opening briefs on Friday.
Advocates for Faith & Freedom draws attention to a crucial constitutional law principle as well as a point of fairness: the state must prove its need before it can bar students from attending any public or private school in California, according to lawyer Erin Mersino.
But since the law permits so many secular exemptions, it is difficult to demonstrate that religious exemptions ought to be eliminated.
Only medically justified exemptions are permitted under SB 277, such as pre-existing conditions that could become dangerous if a person gets a vaccination against measles, mumps, rubella, dipheria-tetanus-pertussis, polio, or Hepatitis B.
According to the plaintiffs, booster shots are required after a child’s initial enrollment in K–12 programs, potentially amounting to a total of 17 shots by the completion of the child’s K–12 attendance.
Huff acknowledged the California Department of Justice attorneys’ claims that no section of SB 277 unjustly affects people based on their religious views, but he found no reason to invalidate any of the statute.
According to the original brief submitted by state prosecutors, the plaintiffs’ arguments are unsupported by federal constitutional doctrine, which has repeatedly ruled for decades that a state’s use of its police authorities to protect the public from contagious diseases is rationally founded. States have a good, if not compelling, reason to mandate vaccinations for children before they can start school.
Due to worries about the vaccines’ contents and their side effects, the plaintiffs, Kristi Caraway of Lake Elsinore, Tiffany Brown of Hollister, Sarah Clark of Temecula, and Sara Royce of Pala, are requesting a reapplication of the personal belief exemption.
They criticize what they say is abortion-related content in vaccines and assert that their children had a number of adverse consequences as a result of the shots.
The plaintiffs assert that in order to support their position, they cited the published excipient lists linked to certain medications by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as online information sheets from the National Academy of Sciences, the Journal for Clinical Microbiology, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.
According to the lawsuit complaint, chickenpox and MMR vaccines had already been found to contain the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines, which are derived from the lung tissue of aborted fetuses.
Get neighborhood news in your inbox. It’s free and enlightening.
Become one of the 20,000+ individuals who receive breaking news alerts and the Times of San Diego in their inbox every day at 8 a.m.
Weekly updates from San Diego communities have also been provided! You acknowledge and agree to the terms by clicking “Sign Up.” Choose from the options below.
According to the lawsuit, a lot of people have religious objections to immunizations since they contain baby tissue that has been aborted.
State lawyers contended that the vaccinations aid in the spread of herd immunity among kids who are huddled together in congested areas and subjected to recurring viral encounters.
According to the defendants, who cited SB 277, the diseases for which California mandates school vaccinations are extremely dangerous and present children with genuine health concerns.
Prosecutors also referenced a 1944 Supreme Court ruling in Prince v. Massachusetts, which held that the freedom to practice one’s religion does not extend to the freedom to expose oneself or one’s children to infectious diseases.
They held that because state vaccination regulations serve a reasonable purpose in public protection, the plaintiffs’ assertion that the First Amendment protects against religious beliefs being violated in connection with vaccination requirements has historically passed court scrutiny.
