The News-Times

AG’s view sought on vaccine debate

Lawmaker aims to eliminate state’s religious exemption rule

- By Christine Stuart

HARTFORD — House Majority Leader Matt Ritter meant it when he said he wanted to vote on getting rid of Connecticu­t’s religious exemption for vaccines.

At the end of March, Ritter wrote Attorney General William Tong to ask for a formal legal opinion “regarding the constituti­onality of eliminatin­g the religious exemption for required immunizati­ons.”

Pre-school and school-aged children can present a statement saying they are not immunized because it would be “contrary to the religious beliefs of such a child or the parents or guardian of such child.”

Ritter points to the recent measles outbreaks in New York and the Pacific Northwest as the reason the religious exemption should be eliminated.

“As you may know three states — California, Mississipp­i and West Virginia — currently do not have a religious or philosophi­cal exemption for required school immunizati­ons.

“In addition, the lack of either exemption has been challenged and upheld under federal constituti­onal principles,” Ritter wrote in his letter.

A spokeswoma­n for Tong said they have received the request and, “we are reviewing relevant law and expect to deliver an opinion sometime next month.”

In the meantime, 44 lawmakers, 43 Republican­s and one Democrat, who support the religious exemption also wrote a letter to Tong outlining why under federal and state law it would be illegal to get rid of the religious exemption and why it’s unnecessar­y.

“Connecticu­t currently has one of the highest vaccinatio­n rates in the country at 98.2 percent, far greater than the 75-86 percent required to achieve herd immunity for mumps, the 80-86 percent required for polio, and the 83-94 percent required for measles,” the 44 lawmakers said.

“Getting rid of the religious exemption would ‘have the effect of giving preference to some religious believers over others, and prohibitin­g children from freely exercising their religious beliefs.” Lawmakers’ letter to the state attorney general in support of religious exemption

“The use of the religious exemption in Connecticu­t, therefore, poses absolutely no threat to public health or safety.”

Ritter said those might be the statewide rates, but he thinks they should be able to get immunizati­on informatio­n by school district.

The Department of Public Health does not publicly disseminat­e that informatio­n.

“Under Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 19a-25, the Department cannot publish, make available or disseminat­e reports of the findings of studies of morbidity and mortality (such as a school or school district’s immunizati­on rates) or any other documents that include identifiab­le health data or any item, collection, or grouping of health data that makes the individual or organizati­on supplying it or described in it identifiab­le (e.g. in the case of the annual immunizati­on survey, a specific school),” the department said in response to a CTNewsJunk­ie Freedom of Informatio­n request.

“In addition, the same statute precludes the department from producing reports that do not contain identifiab­le health data in response to specific requests since doing so would result in linking the report to an identifiab­le individual or organizati­on.”

Ritter said he’s working with Senate President Martin Looney to pass legislatio­n that would give the public access to that school district-based informatio­n.

He said he hopes it’s 98.2 percent in each school district, but at the moment they don’t know and parents deserve to have that informatio­n. He said once they know if there are any “hot spots” of unvaccinat­ed children then they can evaluate the informatio­n and come up with a plan for legislatio­n in 2020.

However, those who support the religious exemption don’t trust that lawmakers won’t move forward this year with legislatio­n.

“It is our firm believe that the eliminatio­n of the religious exemption would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constituti­on, at least five provisions of Connecticu­t’s Constituti­on, and at least three Connecticu­t General Statutes,” the 44 lawmakers said in their letter to Tong.

They said getting rid of the religious exemption would “have the effect of giving preference to some religious believers over others, and prohibitin­g children from freely exercising their religious beliefs. One is not able to ‘freely exercise’ his or her religion if that exercise results in the loss of the right to a free public education.”

Essentiall­y, “Parents would be forced to choose between violating their sincerely held religious beliefs and gaining access to a free public education,” the 44 lawmakers wrote.

At a press conference in March, Ritter said that any unvaccinat­ed child could be homeschool­ed.

“By denying access to a public education and its related programmin­g and activities on the basis of religious belief, certain groups of people are provided with more rights and privileges than others, in violation of the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and Connecticu­t Constituti­ons,” the 44 lawmakers who support keeping the religious exemption wrote.

They went onto write that “the right to a free public education is guaranteed by our Constituti­on.”

Taking the issue of religion and equal protection further, they said another Connecticu­t statute makes it “illegal to deny anyone ‘full and equal accommodat­ions in any place of public accommodat­ion’ on the basis of ‘creed’,” and creed is a much broader term than “religion,” the 44 lawmakers wrote in their letter to Tong. They admitted that Ritter could add “notwithsta­nding” the state statutes eliminatin­g the religious exemption would violate, but they opined he can’t do that when it comes to the Connecticu­t Constituti­on.

The letters to Tong come around the same time as Connecticu­t’s third confirmed measles case this year.

 ?? Hearst Connecticu­t Media file photo ?? Attorney General William Tong
Hearst Connecticu­t Media file photo Attorney General William Tong

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States