California’s New Vaccine Exemption Law – Above the Law?
Vaccine Enthusiasts Want To Do The Same Thing In Washington (December article in Everett Herald. Send the link if you can find it.)
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 by: Alan Phillips, J.D.
(NaturalNews) California’s AB 2109 was passed into law in 2012 and takes effect January 1, 2014. The new CA law (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) will require parents exercising an exemption to immunizations to provide a letter or affidavit to document which required immunizations have been given and which have not been given on the basis that they are contrary to the parent’s beliefs; and beginning on January 1, 2014, the letter or affidavit has to be accompanied by a State Department of Public Health form signed by a health care practitioner saying that he or she provided the parent “information regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health risks of specified communicable diseases,” and a written statement by the parent indicating that he or she received the information from the health care practitioner. (Seriously? the doctor’s signature alone is not convincing?) California’s Governor Brown, when signing AB 2109 into law, directed the Department of Public Health to allow for a separate religious exemption on the form, so that people whose religious beliefs are opposed vaccinations won’t be required to seek a health care practitioner’s signature. The Department complied, and included a religious exemption in its form.
This article addresses the Constitutionality of: 1) the new law, 2) the Governor’s authority to direct the Health Department to allow for a separate religious exemption on the form, 3) the Constitutionality of the current version of the Health Department’s proposed form, and 4) what can be done about these Constitutional problems.
I.Is the new law Constitutional?
While state legislators each take an oath to uphold the state and federal Constitutions, that oath really means little to nothing, as laws are not officially unconstitutional unless and until a court says so. That is, in practice, legislators are free to ignore their oaths and any Constitutional problems in bills; they need only be concerned with getting enough votes and the governor’s signature. If they get that, the bill becomes law.
The problem with California’s new law concerns those with religious objections to immunizations. While what specific beliefs qualify for a religious exemption is beyond the scope of an article, the starting place is that the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by federal courts provides protection for any belief that is religious in nature and sincerely held. If you meet those two criteria as the law defines them, you qualify for any exemption that includes religious objections. And since the Constitution is a higher legal authority than state law, states cannot add additional requirements.
California’s new law refers only to “beliefs” – it says nothing about religion or religious objections. Does California’s new exemption law include those with religious objections to vaccines? Technically, that depends on California’s statutory construction rules, which explain how to interpret California’s statutes. In California, like most if not all other states, statutes must be interpreted to give the intent of the legislature, and unambiguous laws are deemed to state the intent of the legislature. So, California’s exemption law does, implicitly and per applicable statutory construction rules, include a religious exemption. The state Department of Public Health has acknowledged this with respect to California’s current exemption law; see, e.g., http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/imm488e.pdf.
The Constitutional problem with the new statute comes from the fact that it requires *all* persons claiming an exemption, including those with religious beliefs, to jump through additional hoops, which places an unconstitutional burden on those with religious objections, who need only have a sincerely held religious belief under the Constitution. Therefore, the new law is unconstitutional as to those parents with qualifying religious objections to immunizations.
Governor Brown seemed to be acknowledging this when he directed the Department of Public Health to provide for a separate religious exemption on the health department form, so kudos for Governor Brown. But did he have authority to do this?
II.The Governor’s Authority to Direct the Health Department…
Under general principals of separation of powers, the three branches of government – executive (which at the state level is the governor’s office), legislative and judiciary – provide checks and balances for one another. No branch has direct control over any other branch. So, the governor probably could not legally require the health department, which was created by the legislature and is therefore a part of the legislative branch, to do anything. However, the health department may, as a function of its discretionary authority, choose to cooperate with the governor and attempt to implement his directive, so long as the department does so within the boundaries of its statutory authority. So while the governor may have exceeded his authority to direct the health department to include a religious exemption, the health department may have authority to cooperate with the governor by adding a religious exemption to its proposed form, which it has in fact done. However, did the health department follow the law in its attempt to appease the governor?
III. The Department of Public Health’s New Vaccine Exemption Form (http://eziz.org/assets/docs/CDPH-8262.pdf)
The good news is that the health department’s new exemption form provides a separate religious exemption – parents with religious objections don’t have to get a lecture about vaccines or a doctor’s signature. The bad news is that the wording on the new form appears to require membership in an organized religion with tenets opposed to immunizations, which is unconstitutional. As stated above, the First Amendment, a higher legal authority than state law, requires only a sincerely held religious belief.
In summary, the California State Legislature passed an unconstitutional exemption law; Governor Brown probably exceeded his authority when issuing a directive to the California Department of Public Health telling it to include a religious exemption in the exemption form, and the California Department of Public Health has created an unconstitutional exemption form. Does anyone besides me see a pattern here? I’ll let you decide whether this is incompetence or politics, but these errors have resulted in a bad law that will probably unlawfully discriminate against some California parents.
What Can California Parents Do?
The simplest short-term solution would be for the Department of Public Health to modify their form to bring it into compliance with the Constitution – to remove the “member” requirement and require only a sincerely held religious belief or practice opposed to immunizations. The long-term solution would be for the legislature to correct this by amending the state statute. Citizens in California should contact their representatives and the state health department to demand this. Go in numbers if possible, with a petition or group; and see your state representative in person if at all possible; letters and emails tend to get little or no real attention.
Parents adversely affected by the new law could also file a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the law. However, there’s a risk there. When others states’ unconstitutional religious exemption laws were ruled to be unconstitutional by a court, the result, most of the time, was that the entire exemption was stricken, leaving the state with no religious exemption option at all until the state legislature enacted a new exemption law. So, this needs to be analyzed carefully by attorneys contemplating such a suit. Meanwhile, with respect to the health department form as currently drafted, parents who qualify for a religious exemption but who don’t meet the Department of Public Health’s form requirement of “membership” in a religion could theoretically refuse to provide a doctor’s signature anyway, since that requirement is arguably unconstitutional. You may need an attorney backing you up to pull that off, but the legal argument is there. If enough parents around the state objected in this manner, perhaps the legislature would be forced to pay attention to proper legal boundaries for a change, and would amend the statute to bring it into compliance with the Constitution.
Alan Phillips, J.D. is a nationally recognized vaccine rights attorney. He advises clients, activists and other attorneys throughout the U.S. in over a dozen different vaccine exemption and waiver contexts, and supports activists nationally with vaccine legislative initiatives. Learn more at www.vaccinerights.com
About the author:
Alan Phillips, Vaccine Rights Attorney
Vaccine Rights (www.vaccinerights.com)
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043266_California_vaccine_exemptions_Constitutional_rights.html#ixzz2ninMpaz0