For anyone else who's confused by the headline: This means there isn't a religious exemption to vaccines in Connecticut.
The bad guys lost. Yay!
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
116 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2042 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Thank you!
That’s too many negatives in too short a sentence.
I've noticed that about a ton of SCOTUS-related headlines lately. They rejected a challenge to a lawsuit challenging the rejection of the appeal that failed to reject the rejection of their earlier rejected appeal. Takes ten minutes to decipher which side actually won.
Every article about a SCOTUS decision from this week had a title that was at least this brain-breakingly bad, it's gotta stop...
In a civilized country, this would not be a political question, but, rather, a medical one.
In a civilized country, this would not be a political question, but, rather, a medical one.
You're talking about abortion, right?
No, it's birth control, isn't it?
No, I've got it this time- you're talking about trans care!
No birth control for you!
Here's my thing about religious exemption, and my parents used it for me, because they didn't believe in it 30 years ago. Give me one religious text that actually says you shouldn't vaccinate. Just one. You don't have it? Bye bye.
Just to clear the air, the objection tends to be on the grounds that certain medicines/vaccines are tested on stem cells harvested from an aborted baby. While there are other objections, this is the most common one I have run into.
If these individuals are consistent in their objections (avoid tylonel, Advil, and any other meds tested in these stem cells) Then I believe we should respect their religious convictions. But, consistentcy is key here, you can't pick and choose.
We either believe that people have the right to have different beliefs than others, or we don't. We also can't be inconsistent with that ideology. But we can absolutely challenge them when being inconsistent, i.e., if one religious symbol is allowed, any competing ones that someone desires to place must also be allowed.
Um, no.
Letting yourself and your family be potential carriers of disease because your invisible sky daddy says abortion bad - which in the Bible is not the case - is forcing your beliefs on others.
You don't want to vaccinate your kids to help protect the community at large? Then don't be surprised when society rejects your dumb selfish ass. Homeschool and wear masks out in public if you really believe.
That's the funny thing is that they don't have to. They just sign a form that affirms their strongly held conviction. No explanation necessary, because otherwise school admins would have the messy job of ruling on what is and isn't legitimate belief. Just have to hope more states follow suit.
Logical math :
Supreme Court (-1) x (-1) ~~to Connecticut law that~~ (-1) ~~religious~~ vaccination (-1)
= =
S.Court ( -1x-1x-1x-1 = +1 = approuves) vaccine
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a 2021 Connecticut law that eliminated the state’s longstanding religious exemption from childhood immunization requirements for schools, colleges and day care facilities.
“This is the end of the road to a challenge to Connecticut’s lifesaving and fully lawful vaccine requirements,” Democratic Attorney General William Tong said in a statement.
Brian Festa, vice president and co-founder for the group We The Patriots USA Inc., a lead plaintiff in the case, called the decision “disappointing” but said it’s “not the end of the road for us in our fight to win back religious exemptions for schoolchildren.”
The group — which has challenged other vaccination laws, including for COVID-19 — had argued along with several parents that Connecticut violated religious freedom protections by removing the exemption.
We The Patriots USA also has an ongoing federal lawsuit filed on behalf of a Christian preschool and daycare that’s challenging Connecticut’s vaccine mandate on constitutional grounds.
“It is our practice at We The Patriots USA to battle on many fronts simultaneously, and to never put all of our eggs in one basket,” Festa said, calling the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday “one setback, but far from a total defeat.”
The original article contains 440 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!