Hacker News Reader

Comment by joezydeco | Hacker News Reader

New York has set such a policy in place and it's been upheld through multiple trials and appeals. Perhaps once it's settled in the higher courts it will become standard policy in a lot of other places. Once can hope.

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/01/federal-appeals-court-u...

View on HN

It seems to me like New York's current law is the same as California. From the article you linked: The state law provides two exemptions from the mandate, ... the second for "children whose parent, parents, or guardian hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to the practices herein required.

The NPR article seems to discuss a father specifically attacking the personal belief exemption in California, so I don't see how the NY court's ruling would change that?

I highly doubt people in Marin are doing it on religious grounds.

Can confirm, I grew up near the area described in the article. USC has some 2010 data [1] on religious beliefs in Marin. None of the popular belief systems are known for discouraging immunization. Anecdotally, Marin has quite a large alternative medicine following which may explain the high opt-out rate.

[1] http://crcc.usc.edu/resources/demographics/marin.html

It's astounding to me that the anti-vaccine movement is so strong in Marin of all paces, good percentage educated overall, good tertiary education and pretty high income.

But, as they say, people will believe despite evidence or overwhelming evidence to the contrary. One can excuse religious people on the basis that their belief is based in faith rather than interpreting the data their way. What happens in Marin, among other places, is that people believe despite data showing otherwise.

In other words, people in Marin aren't saying, well, but I have faith that vaccines are bad, no they're saying we believe data says vaccines are bad. It's incomprehensible.

New York only always exemptions for sincere religious beliefs, California allows exemptions for any beliefs.

Before the obvious objection, there are plenty of examples of people who try to create a special purpose religion to get around some or other rule, and only a few cases where it has actually worked.

Also as the top level poster alludes to the second circuit recently ruled that the religious exemption is not constitutionally required. Phillips v City of New York (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1688862.html).

Thank you, this decision was a great read, and I now have a better understanding how the school and legal systems in New York will challenge religious exemption to a level California seemingly does not.

I think I found the judicial vernacular of "lol, no":

  Plaintiffs finally seek succor in the Ninth Amendment. 
  But, we have held, “[t]he Ninth Amendment is not an
  independent source of individual rights.” 
  Because plaintiffs fail plausibly to allege a violation 
  of any other constitutional right, their effort to 
  recast their unsuccessful claims as a violation of the 
  Ninth Amendment also fails.

Actually I think I linked to the wrong thing. The same judge also ruled in favor of barring unvaccinated children from school when an outbreak of a preventable illness hits, which seems like a pretty effective way of protecting children while simultaneously respecting the religious choice of the parents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/nyregion/judge-upholds-pol...

This policy is in Australia also. They have done case studies showing the benefits: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishi...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com