Protect the many
Published March 24, 2015
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, March 24, 2015.
Sen. Jeff Tarte said he respects religious freedom but added, “Your rights stop at the point you start impinging on anybody else’s rights.”
The Mecklenburg County Republican is correct, and the bill he filed to remove the religious exemption from vaccination requirements ought to be enacted. But some senators may have trouble with the concept.
Tarte was one of just two Senate Republicans who voted against Senate Bill 2, which allows magistrates and register of deeds employees with “deeply held religious objections” to bow out of duties related to same-sex marriages. Give him credit for consistency.
The same goes for the Democratic co-sponsor of Senate Bill 346, Sen. Terry Van Duyn. She debated fiercely against SB 2, saying it allowed public employees to use a religious excuse to discriminate against gay people.
The point in both cases is that there are public obligations that transcend personal views.
The measles outbreak in California and other states earlier this year pointed to the danger of leaving children unvaccinated. Not only should parents protect their own children from contagious diseases, but vaccination provides a societal safeguard. It stops outbreaks.
There are children who, because of age or immune system issues, can’t be vaccinated. Their only protection short of isolation is for other kids to receive vaccines. When almost all are vaccinated, virtually all are protected.
SB 346 doesn’t explicitly mandate vaccination; it just makes vaccination a requirement for attending school. It doesn’t specifically address home schools.
A long list of vaccinations is included, including against flu. Details can be negotiated during the legislative process. Most importantly, the bill would repeal the exemption allowed by law for “bona fide religious beliefs.” A person’s private religious practice is protected by our Bill of Rights, but it doesn’t allow behavior that puts others at risk.
Unfortunately, opponents mobilized quickly. A “No on SB 346” Facebook page decried Tarte’s “desire to define for us where our personal beliefs are legitimate.”
That’s not the case. The bill simply separates religious beliefs from public health policy.
Tarte said his bill was meant “to open a dialogue to set good public health policy.” A co-sponsor, Sen. Tamara Barringer (R-Wake), added, “What we are really looking for is a good public conversation to come up with a very viable solution for what’s become a public health situation.”
People who oppose vaccinations range from very conservative to very liberal. Some hold religious convictions, while others believe medical misinformation. One of the state’s highest rates of vaccination resistance is found in left-leaning Asheville, which Van Duyn represents.
Good sense must prevail. The anti-vaccination movement, which is spreading across the country and around the world, is allowing the return of diseases that had all but disappeared. It is a threat to public health.
Deeply held religious beliefs are fine, but they can’t be allowed to undermine the greater good.
March 24, 2015 at 1:39 pm
Richard L Bunce says:
The "greater good" is usually not...
Not all diseases present the same risk at any given time so not all vaccines should require the same mandate.
March 24, 2015 at 2:48 pm
Richard L Bunce says:
... and I should ask not all vaccines have the same risk either. A low risk diseases and a high risk vaccine should not be mandated the same as a high risk disease and a low risk vaccine. I know government bureaucrats like to keep it simple... if they cannot handle the job then like the magistrates they should quit.
