On the final day of its term Thursday, the Supreme Court refused to review a New York state law requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated—without providing the option of a religious exemption. The majority was broken by Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch Justices, as well Samuel A. Alito Jr. The Washington Post provides more details:
In the New York vaccination case, the court had rejected in December Doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel requested an urgent request. They claimed they are being forced to make a choice between their livelihood and their faith. They said they should receive a religious exemption because the state’s rule allows one for those who decline the vaccine for medical reasons.
Supreme Court declined to hear a case concerning a COVID-19 requirement for New York’s health care workers. The exemption was not granted for religious reasons. New York is not one of the three states that allow religious exemptions. https://t.co/5GhplwLlPK
— The Associated Press (@AP) June 30, 2022
In August of last year, New York state announced a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers that included exemptions for religious reasons, but just over a week later the state’s Department of Health took away that exemption. Letitia James, New York’s Attorney General, stated in briefing to the Court that:
Like longstanding similar state vaccination requirements for measles and rubella, DOH’s rule at issue here contains a single, limited medical exemption.
However, it is not religious.
Justice Gorsuch, who wrote critical remarks about the Court’s December rejection of the emergency request:
The State’s executive decree clearly interferes with the free exercise of religion—and does so seemingly based on nothing more than fear and anger at those who harbor unpopular religious beliefs. We allow the State to insist on the dismissal of thousands of medical workers—the very same individuals New York has depended on and praised for their service on the pandemic’s front lines over the last 21 months … One can only hope today’s ruling will not be the final chapter in this grim story.
He continued:
These applicants are not ‘anti-vaxxers’ who object to all vaccines. The applicants claim that they are not anti-vaxxers who object to all vaccines. They can’t receive the Covid-19 vaccine due to their religious beliefs.
State argued that coronavirus vaccines don’t contain aborted foetus cells. Three EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), vaccines are in actual use. WereBased on the reproduction of fetal cell lines from abortions performed in 1980s and 1970s. However, the shots do not contain any fetal cells.
Judge Thomas stated in disapproval:
There remains considerable confusion over whether a mandate, like New York’s, that does not exempt religious conduct can ever be neutral and generally applicable if it exempts secular conduct that similarly frustrates the specific interest that the mandate serves.
He was frustrated that his colleagues refused to review the case, arguing that the Court should provide guidance to lower courts “before the next crisis forces us again to decide complex legal issues in an emergency posture.”
The Court’s opinions have been a source of cheering for conservatives in recent years, but the best was probably the Dobbs abortion case and today’s West Virginia v. Environmental Protection AgencyThis decision will leave people scratching their heads. This seems odd that the Court refuses to examine a law that requires people to inject drugs they don’t need or objects to. Yes, vaccine mandates are not new—but mRNA vaccines are, and they haven’t been around long enough to know the long-term effects. It is also confusing that mandates to vaccine are partially responsible for shortages of workers in many areas, including the summer camp industry and travel industry. Most important is that the vaccines don’t stop infection or transmission, which would make a sensible person question the mandate on nonreligious grounds.
This was a mistake by the Supreme Court.
About Post Author
