We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
WHY IS VACCINATION DIFFERENT? A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS.
- Authors
Killmond, Marie
- Abstract
While vaccination is a hot political topic, it is largely settled as a matter of law. Ever since the Supreme Court's 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, state governments have possessed the authority to enforce mandatory vaccination laws. Furthermore, courts have long recognized that States are not required to provide religious exemptions to these vaccination mandates, though most do. The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in a Second Circuit case that rejected substantive due process and free exercise challenges to a vaccination requirement, indicating that the High Court does not plan to change its stance on the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination anytime soon. In contrast to the stability of compulsory vaccination doctrine, the law of religious exemptions more generally is in a state of upheaval. This Note will place the recent surge in religious exemption claim--most notably, claims for religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement and from statutes prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations--in the context of vaccination law. In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it is unclear how courts should respond to the new spate of religious exemption challenges. More recently, in remanding Zubik v. Burwell to the circuit courts, the Supreme Court specifically declined to describe how courts determine the balance between free exercise values and the government's interest in ensuring full health care coverage. Thus, the heated judicial and scholarly debate remains active, and the questions about how courts should weigh the burdens faced by parties seeking religious exemptions with the burdens that would be faced by regulatory beneficiaries or other third parties if the exemptions were granted remain live. The long-settled--yet relatively neglected - treatment of religious exemption claims in the compulsory vaccination context offers conceptual and doctrinal resources that can help resolve this debate.
- Subjects
JACOBSON v. Massachusetts (Supreme Court case); VACCINATION policies; PATIENT Protection &; Affordable Care Act; BURWELL v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.; ZUBIK v. Burwell (Supreme Court case); PREVENTIVE medicine
- Publication
Columbia Law Review, 2017, Vol 117, Issue 4, p913
- ISSN
0010-1958
- Publication type
Article