NY Lawmakers Approve Bill to End Religious Exemptions for Vaccines
Opponents of the legislation have vowed to front a legal challenge when it becomes law, though Cuomo's office and the bill's sponsors remain confident that it would survive judicial review.
June 13, 2019 at 07:05 PM
5 minute read
New York is set to eliminate the religious exemption allowing parents to prevent their children from receiving vaccinations, after the state Legislature voted to remove the exemption during a contentious day at the state Capitol on Thursday.
The bill was signed almost immediately by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who had said earlier this week that he supported the measure. The new law takes effect immediately.
State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, D-Bronx, have worked in recent months to convince their colleagues to back the measure after an outbreak of measles in areas of Rockland County and New York City emerged earlier this year.
“We are dealing with a public health emergency that requires immediate action,” Hoylman said Thursday. “The question of public safety is at issue.”
It was almost in danger of not passing Thursday when it failed to initially gain support from a majority of members in the Assembly Health Committee. Assemblyman Nader Sayegh, D-Westchester, changed his vote at the last minute, which allowed the bill to go to the floor.
But even after it came before the entire chamber, Democrats remained split on the measure. Some argued that parents should have the choice whether to vaccinate their children. Others were concerned the bill could be interpreted as unconstitutional.
“It's not about vaccines at all. It's about religious rights,” said Assemblyman Thomas Abinanti, D-Westchester. “It's about whether New York state, which for years has protected religious rights, will take the drastic step of removing from our statutes New York's implementation of our Constitution's First Amendment.”
Abinanti was one of more than a dozen Democrats in the Assembly who voted against the measure, which passed the chamber by a razor-thin margin of 77 votes in favor, two above the threshold for passage. The State Senate later approved the bill by a 36-26 vote.
The legislation would not force anyone to vaccinate their children. It would, instead, prohibit parents from claiming a religious exemption to vaccines in order for their children to attend school or day care in New York. Parents could forgo vaccinations, but their children would be barred from attending day care or school, regardless of whether it's a public or private institution.
Dinowitz, who sponsors the bill, said during the floor vote that some have misinterpreted it to mean that parents would be required to vaccinate their children, regardless of whether they attend school or not. That's not true, he said.
“No, no one would be forced to vaccinate,” Dinowitz said. “Some have said that, but that's not the case.”
Medical exemptions to vaccine requirements would remain in place, though opponents of the legislation have said those are hard to come by. The bill is intended to prevent parents from claiming a religious exemption to vaccines when their reasoning has nothing to do with religion.
Opponents of the legislation have vowed to front a legal challenge when it becomes law, though Cuomo's office and the bill's sponsors remain confident that it would survive judicial review. Alphonso David, counsel to the governor, said Wednesday that his office has reviewed the legislation and found it to be airtight against litigation.
“We've reviewed the bill carefully, we've spoken to [Sen.] Brad Hoylman and the sponsor in the Assembly,” David said. “We believe this current iteration would survive a challenge.”
Hoylman, who sponsors the bill in the Senate, has argued that the legislation's constitutionality is supported by case law, some of which is more than a century old.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, decided in 1905, held that Massachusetts' compulsory vaccination law was a lawful exercise of its police power to protect public health and safety and therefore didn't violate the plaintiff's 14th Amendment liberty interest.
A different case, decided only a few years ago, was brought by a group of parents who challenged New York's requirement to have their children vaccinated in order to attend public school. They had applied for religious exemptions but were either denied or were subject to a different section of state law that prohibited them from being in school unvaccinated.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said, in a decision on the case in 2015, that not only was the state's law constitutional, the Legislature could go further if it wanted to.
“New York could constitutionally require that all children be vaccinated in order to attend public school,” the appellate court wrote. “New York law goes beyond what the Constitution requires by allowing an exemption for parents with genuine and sincere religious beliefs.”
Advocates rallied with their children at the Capitol hours before the measure was approved by either chamber on Thursday, and even attended the committee meeting where the bill moved. As members of the Assembly cast their vote to approve the bill, one still seemed confident they could roll back the legislation in the future.
“We'll be back,” the advocate said. “This isn't over.”
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute read'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readLippman Study on Antisemitism at CUNY Weighs Free Speech, Unprotected Acts
'Illegal Conspiracy'?: EDNY Antitrust Class Action Challenges Publishers' 'Unpaid Peer Review Rule'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 2The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 3Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250