End moral and religious exemptions for vaccinations

This week, state lawmakers are considering a proposal that would effectively end a part of the debate regarding COVID-19 vaccine and testing mandates. But even with its good intentions, it doesn’t appear to go far enough. As the Sun-times’ Rachel Hinton reported this week, legislators have been considering a proposal that would ban employees from citing moral beliefs as a valid reason for refusing to comply with a workplace mandate for COVID-19 vaccination or testing. Under the Illinois measure, employees would still be able to cite religious or medical reasons for not complying with COVID-19 requirements. But in our view, as we approach a second winter of this pandemic, the sole exceptions that should remain in place are those citing legitimate, verifiable, limited medical reasons for avoiding the vaccine. This editorial board once supported the concept of granting religious exemptions to vaccines, on a very limited basis, to those who can demonstrate that their opposition is based on sincere, deeply held beliefs. Absent a deadly pandemic that continues to disrupt daily life, we might well continue to hold to that view. But as a matter of public health — including the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons — a ban on both moral and religious exemptions, focused solely on COVID-19 vaccines and testing, is the right move. Legislators should hammer out the details and take these steps, for the sake of ending this pandemic as quickly as possible. The amendment, filed by state Rep. Rep. Robyn Gabel, D-evanston, would change the state’s Health Care Right of Conscience Act to make clear that public officials and private companies can impose COVID-19 vaccine and testing requirements as a condition of employment. But recently, a small group of unvaccinated teachers in the southern Illinois town of Nauvoo has relied on the law as the basis for their argument against both vaccine and COVID-19 testing requirements. Other workers have followed suit, with lawyers ginning up cases on behalf of those who stubbornly refuse to get vaccinated. Enough. The act was originally intended to protect health care workers who refused to provide abortion or contraceptive services on moral or religious grounds. The proposed legislation would not change that, nor should it. The urgent goal here is to end a pandemic, not to ignite a battle over abortion rights. In an ideal world, mandates aimed at ending a pandemic would not be necessary. Everyone who could be vaccinated would do so, quickly and willingly, for their sake and the sake of the community as a whole. After all, concern for others is a core tenet of most religious traditions. But consider the current state of our country: Just 57% of Americans are fully vaccinated. The percentage is similar in Illinois, though some southern counties remain far below that. Overall, we’re far short of the 80% scientists say is needed to reach herd immunity, which would protect the population as a whole. n issue of public health, involving a vaccine that has been proven safe and effective in multiple clinical trials, has become a flashpoint for political battles. Wacky, sometimes dangerous misinformation proliferates. Too often, refuseniks take cover under the guise of moral beliefs.