SB 277 Vaccination Analysis

The enactment of the California Senate Bill 277 (SB 277) set new tough laws in order to protect California residents from a number of infectious diseases. Although all states required vaccinations for children before they could enroll into school, many states like California allowed religious and personal exemptions (LOBO, 2016). It was the infamous measles outbreak in California’s DisneyLand park that solidified the urgency to protect not only the most vulnerable members of society, but also other residents as well (LOBO, 2016). California’s reputation of being liberal with personal choices no longer outweighed what some believed to be the control of the spread of infectious diseases. Developers of the bill took an utilitarian approach by
deciding that the passing the bill would benefit would benefit the greatest number of people. Even though this particular mandate seeks to protect California’s public health, the concern of whether this mandate jeopardizes the legal and ethical parental rights of parents can be used to question if a state’s overall public health safety trumps guaranteed individual rights.

Discussion

In 2015, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law a controversial Senate Bill commonly known as SB 277 (Reiss, 2015). The main reason this bill generated so much controversy is because of the fact that this particular law no longer considered “personal beliefs” as a way to exempt oneself or children from receiving vaccinations (Alter, 2015). The personal beliefs covered both religious and philosophical beliefs. In addition, SB 277 prohibits unvaccinated children from attending any public school to ensure the safety of all children. Since personal exemptions are no longer allowed, parents will have to vaccinate their children unless a doctor can provide a medical exemption as to why the child should be exempt from this law (Alter, 2015). Prior to the enactment of this law, parents had the option of declining vaccinating their kids based on personal beliefs that do not necessarily have to be religious (Reiss, 2015). Alter mentions that many parents used the personal belief as a “loophole” to stay away from vaccinating their children (2015). It is important to note that children who are already enrolled can remain in school till the 7th grade, but then their parents will face the same decision that many anti-vaccine parents face concerning to vaccinate or not (Alter, 2015). The once optional vaccination law has now left many California parents fighting for parental autonomy.

Legal and Ethical Issues of SB 277

Religious Freedom

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, SB 277 did not include personal belief exemptions like religion to be allowed.
Parents can longer use religious beliefs as a reason to not vaccinate their kids. Many parents who oppose SB 277 claim that this vaccine mandate dismisses first amendment rights like religious freedom (Crossland, 2016). The anti-vaccine sentiment is sometimes accompanied by religious beliefs. Prior to the passing of this bill, the right to religious freedom was enjoyed by many California families. However, this same perceived right was put to the test because parents now were forced to put aside their religious beliefs in order to meet California’s requirements. According to Crossland, some opponents of the bill are also pro-life which does also include many religious groups (2016). The reason the removal of religious exemption sparked such controversy is because of its connection to their First amendment rights. Religion, unlike other personal beliefs, holds a constant place in the lives of those who practice
it.

It is well known that fetal tissue is used to produce the vaccines widely used on the general public. The concern that vaccinations have the cells of aborted babies positions parents in an ethical dilemma that tests their rights to practice the same religion that may view abortion as a sin (Crossland, 2016). Since many religions view abortions as ethically wrong, the developers of SB 277 clearly emphasized possible public health issues over the serious ethical issues that trouble manu anti-vaccine parents. Consequently, the lack of religious and parental autonomy felt by many anti-vaccine parents is what led families to sue in order to overturn the passing of this bill (Adams, 2016).

Right to Education

The right to education is embedded in California’s constitution. Since 1879, California’s constitution guarantees that every child has the right to receive a free k-12 public education (ACLU, n.d.). This guaranteed right to education provides California children with the opportunity that other financially advantaged residents have. California’s free public education serves as a beacon of hope for many parents who desire for their children to have the opportunity to become productive members of society. After the enactment of SB 277, many California parents found themselves questioning whether SB 277 directly violated their children's right to education under the constitution (Crossland, 2015). Consequently, the possible denial of this specific constitutional right raises some key legal and ethical questions that put a cloud on SB 277’s overall goal to not only protect the health of California residents, but to reduce any potential disease outbreak.

According to world.org, a number of California families had filed a lawsuit to stop SB 277. These parents stated that the mandatory vaccine law breached their children’s right to receive a guaranteed public education (Crossland, 2015). The parents also mentioned in the lawsuit that the mandatory vaccine law not only denied their children a guaranteed constitutional right, but also “infringes on parents’ freedom of conscience” (Crossland, 2015). The enactment of SB 277 put several parents in a frustrating position because they were now forced to look for alternative ways they could educate their children instead of the many public schools their children could now not attend because the parents chose their right not to vaccinate (Crossland, 2015). One of the alternative ways parents could educate their children is by leaving the state or homeschooling (Crossland 2015). This forced choice is what raises the possible legal and ethical dilemma. The unvaccinated children no longer were covered under California’s constitutional law that grants the right to a free education.The San Diego federal judge presiding over the case stated the right to education and public safety should both be considered as “sacred” (Crossland, 2015). However, the judge denied the parents’ attempt to put a stop to SB 277 because the judge explained that First Amendment rights do not necessarily trump the public safety of the state (Crossland, 2015). Consequently, the judge's ruling tested the ethics of many anti-vaccine parents in the state of California.

The Ethics of Freedom of Conscience

This heated debate over SB 277 caused great conflict for the many parents who wanted to protect their children by protecting their own freedom of conscience. In California, many anti-vaccine parents have a genuine fear of vaccinating their children either because of the possible side effects or the fact vaccines contain fetal tissues (Crossland, 2016). This lack of parental autonomy may signal to the parents that the government has taken charge in deciding their children’s school attendance with their kids will based on abandoning their own ethical values. Therefore, many parents may experience a heightened conflict concerning California’s new law and their own ethics. A major ethical consequence might fall on parents who are low-income. Low-income families are in special need of the public education for their children. However, if the parents believe that not vaccinating their children is the right ethical decision to make, then many of these low-income families will be left with the added burden of possibly homeschooling their kids.

Conclusion

It is clear from the many sources I used to conduct my research that the many parents against the bill appear to have legitimate concerns regarding this bill’s impact on their First amendment rights and other constitutional rights like the right to education.
However, according to the San Diego judge, First amendment rights and other fundamental rights do not legally prevail over public health threats (Crossland, 2016).While this may be disheartening to the parents who are against this bill, parents still do have some inconvenient options like homeschooling to look to in order to protect their family’s right. In conclusion, concerned California residents should accept that the legal and ethical issues raised in SB 277 will most likely not cause the repeal of the bill that many believe violated their fundamental
rights.

Strengths and Weakness

All of my sources included adequate information explaining what SB 277 is and how it recently affected the state of California. Although I was able to find several articles discussing issues concerning the right to education and the freedom of conscience, I struggled to find credible sources that specifically assessed the religious freedom portion of the argument. On the other hand, even though religious freedom can be linked to freedom of conscience, I still think it would have been beneficial for the authors to expand on some of the ethical issues and concerns of the residents worried about their religious freedom. Overall, the following sources I used highlighted interesting possible legal and ethical issues of SB 277