Maryland private schools can exclude unvaccinated children

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy and the law. 

Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about the social and legal policies of vaccination. Additionally, Reiss is also member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.

A recurring question that comes up is whether a private school or daycare can increase its safety from disease by refusing to accept unvaccinated children. Generally speaking, private schools and daycares can reject or accept children for whatever reason it wants. If  the school accept federal funds it cannot, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discriminate based on “race, color, or national origin.” But that’s it.

However, some laws enacting exemptions from immunization requirements are phrased in ways that suggest that private institutions are required to accept exempt children. This varies from state to state.  Continue reading “Maryland private schools can exclude unvaccinated children”

The child’s best interest – vaccines and parental rights

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines (generally, but sometimes moving to other areas of medicine), social policy and the law. Her articles usually unwind the complexities of legal issues with vaccinations and legal policies, such as mandatory vaccination and exemptions, with facts and citations.

Professor Reiss also writes extensively in law journals about the social and legal policies of vaccination. Additionally, Reiss is also member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.

In Kagen v. Kagen (pdf), a Michigan Court of Appeals sided with a father who wanted his children vaccinated and overruled the opposition of the mother, ordering the children to be vaccinated on schedule. The Court found that vaccinating was in the best interest of the children. The Court also discussed which type of evidence can be used in Michigan to support claims about vaccines’ safety or lack thereof, highlighting that anti-vaccine sources are probably not going to cut it.

Continue reading “The child’s best interest – vaccines and parental rights”

Immunization requirements neither discriminate nor segregate

This article was written by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines (generally, but sometimes moving to other areas of medicine), social policy and the law. Her articles usually unwind the complexities of legal issues with vaccinations and legal policies, such as mandatory vaccination and exemptions, with facts and citations. 

Additionally, Reiss is also member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.

Anti-vaccine activists have been claiming that statutes abolishing exemptions from school immunization requirements – like SB277 in California – are discriminatory. This post explains why this claim is wrong in both its form: school immunization requirements without exemptions are neither discrimination nor segregation.

Continue reading “Immunization requirements neither discriminate nor segregate”

California SB 277 vaccine legislation protects children

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines (generally, but sometimes moving to other areas of medicine), social policy and the law. Her articles usually unwind the complexities of legal issues with vaccinations and legal policies, such as mandatory vaccination and exemptions, with facts and citations. 

Additionally, Reiss is also member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.

[pullquote]Wake up, and speak for protecting your children from the risk of disease a minority has been allowed to choose for the rest of us.[/pullquote]

Two bills are currently proposed in California that may dramatically affect vaccination rates. Anti-vaccine activists have mobilized against them. We, the majority of vaccinating parents, need to do the same, speak up and make our preferences known. Say clearly that we will no longer have a preventable risk of disease forced on our children, ourselves, and other family members and friends by a minority. And we can.  Continue reading “California SB 277 vaccine legislation protects children”

Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice legislation–bad premises, bad law

This article is by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy and the law. 

Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about the social and legal policies of vaccination. Additionally, Reiss is also member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommend certain vaccines. CDC cannot, and do not, mandate vaccines. However, states can and do require their residents to have received certain vaccines on the CDC recommended schedule in order, most notably, for children to enroll in school. All states, however, also offer exemptions from school immunization requirements, and some – like Maine – offer very easy-to-get ones.

A bill was proposed by Maine legislator Richard Farnsworth adopting an informed refusal requirement before a parent can make use of Maine’s philosophical exemption to send their child to school without the required immunizations. In response, the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice (MCVC), an antivaccine advocacy group, proposed its own law, the “Maine Vaccine Consumer Protection Act.” Proposing an alternative law is not inappropriate.

There are, however, two significant problems of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice legislation – the premises underlying the alternative law, and the content of the proposal. The proposal is based on premises that are either simply untrue or inaccurate and misleading. And it’s extremely bad law. Continue reading “Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice legislation–bad premises, bad law”

Andrew Wakefield keeps trying–another appeal

On September 19, 2014 the Third Court of Appeals of Texas rejected Andrew Wakefield’s appeal against the decision of a Texas trial court that it had no jurisdiction to hear his libel suit against The British Medical Journal (the original article), Brian Deer, and Fiona Godlee. The details of that case and the suggestion that Andrew Wakefield was strategically using litigation to both rally supporters and deter critics have been previously addressed.

Andrew Wakefield had 45 days to appeal the decision to the Texas Supreme Court (Tex. R. App. P. 53.7). That time ended on November 3–an appeal was not filed by Mr. Wakefield within that time. Continue reading “Andrew Wakefield keeps trying–another appeal”

Litigating as “debate” tactic? Wakefield appeal was denied

Andrew Wakefield was wronged

In January 2012 Andrew Wakefield, a British citizen residing in Texas, sued Brian Deer, a British journalist, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Dr. Fiona Godlee, the British editor of BMJ, in a Texas trial Court for libel. Wakefield claimed that a series of articles titled “Secrets of the MMR Scare” written by Brian Deer, edited by Fiona Godlee and published in the BMJ were defamatory. The articles detailed serious scientific misconduct by Andrew Wakefield.

On August 3, 2012, Wakefield’s suit was dismissed based on a lack of jurisdiction. Wakefield then appealed the dismissal. On September 19, 2014 the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District ruled that the Andrew Wakefield appeal was denied (pdf).

The decision itself is focused on issues of civil procedure that may be less of interest to non-lawyers, though these issues are crucially important to litigants and lawyers. But this story is a good demonstration of strategic use of litigation by Andrew Wakefield and an opportunity to discuss the advantages and potential problems of that approach. Continue reading “Litigating as “debate” tactic? Wakefield appeal was denied”

Review of anti-vaccine legislative efforts – 1998-2012

The published article that is the core of this post is a review of anti-vaccine legislative efforts– how the success of the anti-vaccine movement in achieving its legislative goals changed over time. The authors use the term “vaccine critiques”, and I will follow their terminology, though I think the anti-vaccine label fits many of the actors they describe.

The peer reviewed article does two extremely valuable things: describes patterns, and suggests a causal explanation. While the authors are, justifiably, confident in their descriptive analysis, they appropriately warn us that their conclusions about causation are tentative. Their points are, however, very plausible.

This post proceeds in three parts: describing the patterns the authors found, describing their causal conclusions, and asking for a wish-list of further research (an easy enough and somewhat unfair things to do when you don’t have to actually do it).

Note: the authors have expressed their willingness to provide the full paper to individuals, upon request. I recommend it. The paper also states that the database will be made available on request. Continue reading “Review of anti-vaccine legislative efforts – 1998-2012”

Improving immunization rates – what can the Law do? 

vaccine hate debate

Many of us are concerned at the rise of cases of preventable diseases and the role played in that by the decision by a minority of parents not to vaccinate their children. One question is what, if any, effects would legal tool have on improving immunization rates? This article attempts to map out the available tools.

Note that the focus of this article is what the law can do, not what the law should do. The fact that a legal tool is available – i.e. Constitutional, can be enacted or used by the courts – doesn’t automatically mean it should be. I would, in fact, argue that some of the tools discussed here shouldn’t be used in the context of immunization – in most circumstances, forced vaccination and criminal law are inappropriate. But mapping out what’s available seems like a useful first step in the discussion of what the law should do. The goal of this post is to provide a menu of options and a more or less logical way to classify them. My hope is that setting out what’s possible would help us think through what is desirable.

 

Continue reading “Improving immunization rates – what can the Law do? “

Hobby Lobby and religious exemptions – good, bad and ugly

In the recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (Hobby Lobby) decision, a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)’s requirement that qualifying employer health plans under the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) include coverage for all FDA approve contraceptives cannot be applied to at least certain corporations stating religious objections.

The Court found that the regulations violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)’s prohibition on burdening exercise of religion. The majority made every effort to make that decision narrow as possible – but it still has concerning implications for the future, and Justice Ginsburg’s ringing dissent raises very important questions.

When the Skeptical Raptor asked me to write about this decision, we intended that I would discuss Hobby Lobby and religious exemptions for vaccines. But this decision is too important to stop there, so while I also address the vaccination aspect, my discussion is about the decision generally.

From my point of view – as a secular individual who believes reproductive freedom is crucial to women’s equality – the decision has some positives, but also much to be concerned about (I hope the analysis will also be useful to those whose views are different from mine, however). It’s not, however, a decision that turns the United States into a theocracy, as some of the more impassioned posts I’ve seen on Facebook suggest. In some ways, actually, just the opposite.

Continue reading “Hobby Lobby and religious exemptions – good, bad and ugly”