Connecticut lawmakers vote to rescind religious exemption for school vaccination requirements

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

State lawmakers in Connecticut passed a bill Tuesday that would end the state's policy of allowing families to claim religious exemptions from the public school system's immunization requirements, except for those who have claimed them in the past.

The Associated Press reported that the bill passed the state's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on a mostly party-line vote, and now heads to the state Senate. Gov. Ned Lamont (D) has indicated his support for the measure.

An amendment to the bill, passed minutes before the legislation's final approval, allows those who have claimed religious exemptions for vaccines in past years to continue to do so. The aim of Tuesday's bill was to prevent parents from using religious exemptions to keep their child from being required to receive a vaccine as a result of fears surrounding the vaccines' efficacy and safety.

Tuesday's bill will not apply to COVID-19 vaccines, which are not mandated under the state's vaccination protocols for public schools.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/connecticut-lawmakers-vote-to-rescind-religious-exemption-for-school-vaccination-requirements/ar-BB1fRrs9?ocid=DELLDHP&li=BBnbfcL

[Lonestarblue]

1. Good. It's time for the right-wing religious to stop getting special privileges,

especially when their privileges mean potential harm for others. Some children cannot be vaccinated because of health reasons, and they are at risk from unvaccinated children whose parents just want to ignore science (until it benefits them with things like state-of-art cancer treatment or heart surgery).

[cinematicdiversions]

2. I don't think that was being used by who you think it was being used by.

There are plenty of anti-vaxxers in CT, but they tend to be left of the current administration. Think granola moms, some vegans, rich white woman in Fairfield county who back progressive causes.

[Demsrule86]

3. There are plenty of Trump people in Fairfield County. And I don't care why they don't want

vaccines...they have no right to put others at risk.

[weissmam]

4. hooah

[kiri]

5. Christian Scientists were first to demand special laws for themselves

These religious favoritism/exemption laws were passed at the behest of Christian Scientists. Mary Baker Eddy's cult believed that all disease--from mumps to arthritis--was due to a "misalignment of the spiritual bond to god", sort of, like a misalignment of the spine according to chiropractors. The "Christ, Scientist" cult was very rich and powerful, especially in New England. They were mostly benign, except for their hindering of public health--anti water purification, anti-clean air, anti-vax.

MBE has a fancy tomb in Mt Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, MA. Until about 1980 there was a telephone there, because the faithful were sure she would call from heaven! True story.

[tonekat]

8. Just read more about Eddy

What a nut, and her father sounds like one too.

[DFW]

6. Beware the God Squad

They will not like this one bit.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

7. And the exemption is still there for the staff

K.6. If an employer requires vaccinations when they are available, how should it respond to an employee who indicates that he or she is unable to receive a COVID-19 vaccination because of a sincerely held religious practice or belief? (12/16/20)

Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from receiving the vaccination, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation for the religious belief, practice, or observance unless it would pose an undue hardship under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Courts have defined “undue hardship” under Title VII as having more than a de minimis cost or burden on the employer. EEOC guidance explains that because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief. If, however, an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information