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
…show more content…
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 …show more content…
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
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 …show more content…
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