covid 19 religious exemption essay

What’s the law on vaccine exemptions? A religious liberty expert explains

Professor of Law, School of Law, University of Virginia

Disclosure statement

I have represented four clients in the Supreme Court who were seeking religious exemptions, but not from vaccination laws. I have filed many friend-of-the-court briefs in support of litigants seeking religious exemptions in the Supreme Court, but again, not from vaccination laws. I have filed only one brief in the Supreme Court opposing a request for religious exemptions. That was in Zubik v. Burwell, where claimants tried to get their secular insurers exempted from providing free contraception to their employees. I have repeatedly testified in Congress and state legislatures in support of religious exemptions. But I have never filed a brief or testified to a legislature about vaccination exemptions.

University of Virginia provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

For Americans wary of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, like the sweeping requirements President Joe Biden announced Sept. 9, 2021 , it seems there are plenty of leaders offering ways to get exemptions – especially religious ones.

No major organized religious group has officially discouraged the vaccine, and many, like the Catholic Church, have explicitly encouraged them . Yet pastors from New York to California have offered letters to help their parishioners - or sometimes anyone who asks – avoid the shots.

These developments point to deep confusion over how to win a religious exemption. So what are they, and is the government even required to offer the exemptions in the first place?

Many schools, businesses and governments requiring vaccination have offered religious exemptions. Some are loath to challenge people’s claims that getting the shot goes against their beliefs for fear of being sued , but organizations have come up with a variety of ways to assess claimants’ sincerity.

But the legal basis of Americans’ supposed right to a religious exemption to vaccination is less clear than such policies’ popularity would suggest.

As a lawyer and scholar who focuses on religious liberties , I have supported religious exemptions for a baker who refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, a family-owned business that refused to provide emergency contraception to its employees, a Muslim prisoner who was obligated to grow a beard and many others .

Even so, I believe that under the general law of religious liberty – including the Constitution and state and federal religious freedom laws – the government has an easy case to refuse religious exemptions from vaccines against infectious disease.

Proving ‘interest’

There are a variety of ways to present a religious liberty claim, each with a different set of rules.

The most stringent standard is that the government should not require people to violate their conscience without a compelling reason .

The Supreme Court has never been clear about the full range of what counts as “compelling,” but some cases are clear. The government has a compelling interest in preventing significant threats to other people’s health, and especially so in a pandemic. The unvaccinated endanger people who are immunosuppressed or cannot be vaccinated because of their age or any other medical reason. The unvaccinated also endanger people who are vaccinated because no vaccination is 100% effective, as is evident from the number of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in the U.S.

Until last month, no state or federal court had ever granted a religious exemption when the government had to demonstrate compelling interest in requiring a vaccine. Now, a federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order to prevent Western Michigan University, a public school, from requiring its student-athletes to be vaccinated. This is a preliminary opinion and seems unlikely to stand up through further proceedings and appeal, since every judge to encounter such an issue in the past has ruled the other way.

The Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the Constitution does not always require a compelling interest.

Under the current law of the Constitution, people have no right to a religious exemption from a rule unless there is also a secular exception or gap in coverage that would undermine the government’s interests just as much. If there isn’t such a secular exception, the government doesn’t have to show any reason at all to refuse religious exemptions .

Usually the only secular exception to vaccine requirements is for “ medical contraindications ,” meaning that a vaccine would harm the recipient - for example, if someone is allergic to an ingredient in the vaccine.

But these medical exceptions don’t undermine the government’s interest in saving lives, preventing serious illness or preserving hospital capacity. By avoiding medical complications, those exceptions actually serve the government’s interests.

Offering exemptions

In some states, however, the situation is more complicated. Most states explicitly authorize religious exemptions to vaccination, and sometimes philosophical exemptions as well – regardless of the government’s compelling interests.

Those state laws could not protect anyone from a federal vaccine mandate, and many of them only apply to certain groups – usually schoolchildren . But they could protect people from mandates from their state or local government.

Many private employers requiring vaccines offer religious exemptions, too. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires businesses to accommodate workers’ religious practice as long as they do not cause “undue hardship” to the employer. But the Supreme Court has interpreted “ undue hardship ” to mean anything more than a minimal expense, meaning employers don’t need a reason anywhere near as strong as a compelling interest. So employers do not have to allow religious exemptions to their employees.

Still, many employers and governments alike have been reluctant to challenge religious exemption claims. When it comes to vaccines against childhood diseases, where the danger did not seem great or immediate, many groups have just taken people’s word for it if they say their religious views prevent vaccination.

Backing up beliefs

There is evidence that many claims of religious objections to vaccination are false, particularly given the large anti-vaccine movement in the U.S.

Law professor Dorit Rubinstein Reiss has compiled anecdotal and survey evidence that most claims for refusing school vaccination requirements on religious grounds are false. The objectors really do object to vaccination, but their reasons are not religious. Meanwhile, opposing COVID-19 vaccinations has become a matter of political identity for many on the political right.

These factors could mean a flood of false religious claims. And whenever that situation arises under the federal law of religious exemptions, the Supreme Court has refused them.

The court rarely talks about this explicitly, but there is a compelling interest in not having a general policy’s effectiveness undermined by thousands or millions of claimed religious objections. That’s part of the reason why the court has refused constitutional protection for religious objections to paying taxes , or serving in the military , or, back in the desegregation era, integrating restaurants .

It is very hard for judges to determine religious sincerity , and mostly they don’t try. But when there are likely to be many exemption claims – both true and false – courts reject them because the difficult task of judging the sincerity of one or a few claimants becomes impossible when there are thousands or millions.

Challenges ahead?

Still, some claims are probably sincere. One question to ask people claiming religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccines - whether on cross-examination in a courtroom or arguing at a meeting of your local school board – is whether they or their children are vaccinated against other diseases. Even if the answer is “no,” however, that may point to longstanding anti-vaccination views rather than sincere religious objections.

Some Catholics object to COVID-19 vaccinations because decades-old fetal cell lines were used in the vaccine research. If that is their sincere religious belief, it doesn’t matter that Pope Francis disagrees .

[ Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today .]

Still, even when religious objections are sincere, the government has a compelling interest in overriding them and insisting that everyone be vaccinated. And that overrides any claim under state or federal constitutions or religious liberty legislation. It is irrelevant to state statutes that explicitly grant vaccine exemptions with no exceptions for compelling government interests. But federal vaccination requirements override those state laws .

With mandates – and vocal objections – looking poised to grow, the United States could see vaccination requirements more and more put to the test in court this fall. But how far can challenges go? Unless governments mandating vaccines do not defend their rules, or the Supreme Court changes the law, the answer is likely, “Not far.”

• US Supreme Court
• Religious freedom
• Religion and society
• Religion and law
• Anti-vaxx movement
• Vaccine mandates

Program Manager, Teaching & Learning Initiatives

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Getting a religious exemption to a vaccine mandate may not be easy. Here's why

Shannon Bond

The waiting area of a pop-up vaccination site at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City sits empty as the rush for vaccinations winds down in June. David Dee Delgado/Getty Images hide caption

The waiting area of a pop-up vaccination site at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City sits empty as the rush for vaccinations winds down in June.

More and more employers are ordering workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19 without the option of getting tested instead. Now workers are pushing back.

In Washington, D.C., more than 400 fire and emergency medical workers applied for religious exemptions to the city's vaccine mandate. In Los Angeles, roughly a quarter of the police department is expected to seek religious exemptions.

How many of those requests will ultimately be approved is unknown. Already, some employers are taking a harder line than others. Under the law, employers have a lot of discretion when granting religious exemptions.

What are employer obligations to workers when it comes to religious exemptions?

The right to request a religious exemption stems from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which protects workers from discrimination on the basis of religion, among other things. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says employers must provide reasonable accommodations for workers who have sincerely held religious beliefs — unless doing so poses an undue hardship.

There's a lot to unpack there.

The Coronavirus Crisis

'love your neighbor' and get the shot: white evangelical leaders push covid vaccines.

First, employers may probe whether an employee's religious belief is in fact sincere. They may ask questions about that employee's vaccination history or church attendance. If the employer determines the belief is not sincere, it may deny the exemption request.

But even if an employee's religious belief is determined to be sincere, it's the employer who decides what the reasonable accommodation will be. It does not have to be the accommodation requested by the employee.

What's reasonable when it comes to a reasonable accommodation?

What one employer deems to be reasonable, another may not.

In Conway, Ark., Matt Troup, CEO of Conway Regional Health System, has granted 45 religious exemptions to employees who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Their objections were largely based on the employees' beliefs that vaccines that used fetal cells in research, testing or production should not be put in their bodies.

Coronavirus Updates

Vatican oks receiving covid-19 vaccines, even if research involved fetal tissue.

( Public health officials say fetal cell lines developed decades ago in the laboratory were used to develop and test the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — a common practice in pharmaceutical research. Other fetal cell lines are being used in the production of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. But the vaccines themselves do not contain any fetal cells.)

Before granting the religious exemptions, Troup sent the employees a list of 28 commonly used medicines that also used fetal cells in their research, testing or development — a list that includes Tylenol, Motrin, Tums, Ex-Lax and other medicine cabinet staples. He asked employees to attest to not be using any of those medicines.

As part of an education campaign, Conway Regional Health System sent this form out to employees who requested religious exemptions to the hospital's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Conway Regional Health System hide caption

"They need to know that if they're going to be consistent in their beliefs, that applies to a lot of different things other than the COVID vaccine," Troup says.

Presented with the list, the employees who had requested religious exemptions still declined the vaccines. So Troup informed them they'd have to undergo regular COVID-19 testing. With 95% of his workforce vaccinated, he felt it was a reasonable accommodation.

"I feel like we've accomplished our goal to protect our staff, our patients and our community," he says. "We want to respect people's religious freedoms and their ability to make these decisions to the point that we can."

But already, there are employers who have been less accommodating.

The NBA has announced the following: pic.twitter.com/6t1spKMU35 — NBA Communications (@NBAPR) September 24, 2021

The NBA recently denied a religious exemption request from Golden State Warriors forward Andrew Wiggins, announcing that the athlete will not be able to play at any home games in San Francisco, which has a vaccine mandate for large indoor events, until he fulfills the city's vaccination requirements.

United Airlines has granted religious exemptions to a small number of employees, but the reasonable accommodation the airline has provided is to put the employees on indefinite unpaid leave without regular benefits. A handful of United employees have sued, saying unpaid leave is not a reasonable accommodation but rather an adverse employment action.

Román Hernández, a labor and employment attorney with Troutman Pepper in Portland, Ore., says historically, courts have upheld unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation in religious exemption cases.

"It's probably not the accommodation that those workers wanted, but that is something that the employer is providing," Hernández says.

What's considered an undue hardship when it comes to religious exemptions?

Remember that under the law, employers must provide reasonable accommodations to workers seeking religious exemptions — unless doing so poses an undue hardship.

It's important to look at how the EEOC defines undue hardship.

Unvaccinated United Airlines employees to be put on temporary leave

In religious exemption cases, undue hardship is defined as "more than a de minimis ," or minimal, cost or burden on the operation of the employer's business. Hernández points out that an accommodation that involves shift changes could constitute more than a minimal burden to an employer, allowing the employer to deny such an accommodation.

In its defense, United has argued that allowing unvaccinated employees to continue working in customer-facing roles on-site "would impose extraordinary — not just de minimis — costs on United and the public." The airline says it would have to implement a coronavirus testing program at more than 100 domestic airports and offices. Running such a program would cause a heavier workload for vaccinated co-workers — and United notes that 97% of its employees are now vaccinated.

Does it matter what the head of my religion says about the COVID-19 vaccines?

Vaccination is a simple way of promoting the common good and caring for each other, especially the most vulnerable. https://t.co/j9prRxvpoi — Pope Francis (@Pontifex) August 18, 2021

Probably not, because religious exemptions ultimately come down to an employee's personal belief and whether an employer can find a reasonable accommodation.

So far, no major religion has come out in opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, prominent religious leaders are endorsing them. Pope Francis has told Catholics that getting vaccinated is "an act of love," for example.

Even the Christian Science Church, which counsels prayer rather than medical care, says it doesn't have an official policy on vaccinations. It leaves it up to individuals to make that decision.

What about all the tips being shared online for getting a religious exemption?

Mentions of religious mandates on social media and traditional media outlets have jumped ninefold since June, with most of that spike coming after the White House announced vaccine mandates for federal employees in early September, according to an analysis by media tracking firm Zignal Labs.

Untangling Disinformation

Facebook's most viewed article in early 2021 raised doubt about covid vaccine.

In Facebook groups opposed to vaccine mandates, members frequently ask about how to obtain a religious exemption and what to say when petitioning their employers.

In these groups, members regularly cite misleading claims that vaccines contain fetal cells. Others share links to online churches and self-described "consultants" offering signed exemption letters. One company offering these services charges $175 for phone consultations, research, sample forms and a signed letter from a pastor.

But keep in mind, the employer really has a lot of discretion in granting these exemptions whether or not you have one of these signed letters. So people should probably think twice about paying for these services.

• religious exemption
• vaccine mandates
• Civil Rights Act of 1964
• workplace safety

Berkley Center

Berkley Forum

Christian Morality and the COVID-19 Vaccine

By: Kevin Wm. Wildes

February 16, 2021

Religion, Bioethics, and COVID-19 Vaccination

The COVID-19 virus has affected people around the world for many months now. The virus is especially challenging for Americans for two reasons. First, Americans think about health care issues as individual problems and not problems of public health for the wider population. A patient sees the physician, receives a diagnosis, and then gets therapy for their illness. Families and friends may be involved, but the focus is on the individual patient. Americans do not think about health care in terms of public health until a crisis like COVID-19 comes along. The second reason COVID-19 is so challenging for Americans is because Americans also live in an instant culture. And so, with health care, we expect immediate diagnosis and immediate solutions. But that is not the case here.

The development of vaccines leads to further questions about the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination. Here, Catholic social teaching can be most helpful, as it asks us to think beyond the boundaries of the normal consumer model of life.

The development of vaccines leads to further questions about the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination. Here, Catholic social teaching can be most helpful.

The development and use of any vaccine is a minefield of ethical questions about its need, testing, and safety. Given both the strong anti-vax movement in society along with many people’s unwillingness to adopt simple measures to prevent spreading the virus, these questions about a vaccine are important to ask. Since a vaccine will protect not only individuals but also the people around them, it is important to understand that a vaccine program is not only about me but it is about the health of the community, which should be certainly important for any Christian.

The outbreak and spread of COVID-19 is a moral and cultural challenge for Americans. Physical distancing measures, though necessary to control the outbreak, have led to greater social isolation, anxiety, and even depression. These adverse effects highlight that humans essentially are social beings whose wellbeing is dependent upon a vibrant and healthy community. In the case of COVID-19, we need to understand that “my” health can only be understood as part of “our” health. Consequently, a key moral component about vaccines is that they are not only good for individuals, but they are also good for the community, and this is certainly the case for COVID-19.

A key moral component about vaccines is that they are not only good for individuals, but they are also good for the community, and this is certainly the case for COVID-19.

Since vaccines are developed, we now face a question of social justice: How should we distribute the vaccine? The obvious answer is everyone should get it. But, by itself, that answer is not helpful.

Normally, we deal with the distribution of goods through market forces. However, we don’t really buy health care the way we purchase other things in our lives. We need to think about the procedures for how goods in health care, such as vaccines for COVID-19, should be distributed, and here is a place where Catholic social teaching can help us to think through these questions. One could argue that it is important to begin distribution with the first responders and those on the front lines helping people, since they are both most at risk and doing a great service for others. After making sure that people on the front lines are vaccinated, we should then prioritize the most vulnerable people by age or preexisting conditions. After that we should move to a more general procedure of distribution. For general distribution, it will be important that the procedures be clear and public.

Of course, particularly in America, there will be those who want to exercise their free choice not be vaccinated, just as there are those who refuse to wear face coverings in public and argue for “the right to be left alone.” However, we should remember that this disease is not just about the individual. You need not be sick to be a spreader of COVID-19 to others, and there is conflicting evidence as to how long one is contagious with the disease.

We need to hold responsible those who willfully refuse to take medically necessary precautions or receive a vaccine, such as by denying them a bed or ventilator.

Those who refuse to take precautions such as wearing a mask or receiving a vaccination not only put themselves at risk, but risk the health of others. Furthermore, we do not have unlimited medical supplies like hospital beds and ventilators, and the cost of treatment is borne by others either in the community or in an insurance pool. An essential part of free choice is that we bear the consequences of our decisions. So, we need to hold responsible those who willfully refuse to take medically necessary precautions or receive a vaccine, such as by denying them a bed or ventilator. Otherwise, we must accept that the rest of us are providing medical “welfare” to such individuals, making us complicit in the needless sickness and deaths of others. As a community, we are and must do better.

The COVID-19 outbreak is a reminder to Americans that health care cannot be understood completely as a private good. This is a public health crisis, and we need to understand vaccination both as an obligation for one’s self, society, and the common good.

About the Author

Kevin Wm. Wildes

Rev. Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J., is University Professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. Wildes is also former president of Loyola University New Orleans, serving in that role from 2004 to 2018. A bioethicist by training, his publications include Moral Acquaintances: Methodology in Bioethics and, as co-editor,  Birth, Suffering, and Death: Catholic Perspectives at the Edges of Life .

Religious Exemptions to Vaccines and the Anti-Vax Movement

By Dorit Rubinstein Reiss

Two major problems with granting religious exemptions to vaccine mandates are that they are very hard to police, and that they are routinely gamed.

Religious freedom is a core value in the United States. This makes policing religious exemptions to vaccination hard – and rightly so. The government policing people’s religion raises a number of thorny issues.

The problem is that the same people who eagerly promote anti-vaccine misinformation are just as eager to misuse religion to avoid vaccinating, and have no hesitation or compunction about coaching others to do the same. And without policing, it is easy for those misled by anti-vaccine misinformation to use the religious exemption.

In a recent hearing on a bill to remove Massachusetts’ religious exemption, a witness said that she used the religious exemption, “Not because it goes against my religion, but because I do not believe that it is necessary to put additional chemicals into my child’s body for an illness that she would fully recover from. You are proposing to take away my right as a parent and for what? To protect other people?”

This anecdote is not exceptional. In a previous paper , I pointed out that quite a bit of evidence suggests there is widespread misuse of religious exemptions.

This includes: statements from anti-vaccine activists who state publicly that they lied to get religious exemptions; surveys on the reasons people do not vaccinate; and the fact that most religions do not prohibit vaccines (in fact, many actively encourage or support them).

Sincere beliefs?

But cracking down on the misuse of religious exemptions is quite difficult. Employers, universities, or states offering religious exemptions cannot limit them to organized religion, because that would discriminate against those with sincere beliefs that are not part of an organized religion .

This makes sense, because the validity of your religious exemption should not depend on belonging to a religion that opposes vaccines. But it removes one tool that would help distinguish between those with sincere religious objections, and those using religion to cover other objections to vaccines.

Additionally, states cannot refuse an exemption to those whose interpretation differs from their religion’s doctrine regarding vaccination. It’s not the state job to enforce a religion’s rules on its believers, the state is tasked simply with assessing whether the religious objection is sincere . This too makes sense, but again, makes it harder to challenge religious exemption claims by members of religions that support vaccines. Assessing sincerity is tricky grounds. And dedicated anti-vaccine activists are exploiting these ambiguities to help people get religious exemptions.

While it is hard to examine closely, there is no reason to think most, or even a large share, of religious exemption requests to COVID-19 vaccines are from people whose opposition is religious. In fact, given the amount of misinformation about vaccine safety and the virus, chances are that most of the exemption requests are from people who do not want to get COVID-19 vaccines because of safety concerns or misinformation about the pandemic.

Granting exemptions on the basis of religion incentivizes these people to lie, and exemptions are more likely to be given to people who have lied well — for example, by getting input from anti-vaccine activists teaching others to game the system.

Gaming exemptions

For example, Rita Palma, a New York-based anti-vaccine activist, has been actively promoting her site, My Kids, My Choice , which links to several resources on how to get an exemption, on her Facebook page.

Attorney Kevin Barry has, in a Facebook Live , promoted a Zoom webinar he is offering on how to get the religious exemption “right.”

“Later, we are going to have to see, if the religious exemption is approved, whatever restrictions the university might throw at you,” he explained during the live event. “We can find ways around that, but you’re have to get the religious exemption approved first and we are going to give you some strategies on how to do that.”

A relative newcomer, a student named Cait Corrigan, offered her followers five rules for getting a religious exemption, which include the following :

RULE #4 in writing a religious exemption: Do not mention c0v-id 19, side effects, or scientific data! Do not mention the V is under E-U-A. Your RE is a statement on your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Write about scripture, your religious history, & faith!

Finally, attorney Jim Mermigis has been touting the religious exemptions he wrote, calling for potential plaintiffs, and encouraging people not to vaccinate.

The tenor of all of these posts is to help people seeking exemptions get one. There is no emphasis on sincerity, instead, the advice is geared towards gaming the system.

I have said it before, and will say it again. A public policy that encourages people to lie and advantages the better liars — or those who have access to those who can teach them what to say — is a bad policy. In this case, the policy also benefits anti-vaccine activists exploiting the situation.

Implications for public universities

At present, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that public universities requiring vaccines have to give a religious exemption. The Supreme Court has been tightening protection of religious freedom, but the guiding principle is still Employment Division v. Smith , which does not require a religious exemption from a generally applicable, neutral-on-its-face law. Universities may want to consider, on this background, not offering a religious exemption. Yes, there is a risk the Supreme Court will strike down such a rule. But, given the context — that it’s highly likely most exemption requests are from people without religious objections, and that many are selling services to help game exemptions — the Supreme Court may consider that universities are justified in not offering such an exemption.

If universities do offer religious exemptions, they may want to consider the need for careful enforcement, including examining, in detail, the advice of anti-vaccine activists, keeping a list of those openly working to game religious exemptions and looking for their involvement, and potentially interviewing individuals whose exemption requests raise red flags. They also can require a detailed exemption letter, and, in cases that raise questions, require independent corroboration — though they cannot limit that corroboration to organized religion. At the least, universities should plan how to reduce misuse of religious exemption, to avoid having exemptors undermine campus safety.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Dorit Reiss

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss is a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Increasingly, her research and activities are focused on legal issues related to vaccines, including exemption laws and tort liability related to non-vaccination. She published law review and peer reviewed articles and many blog posts on legal issues related to vaccines. She received an undergraduate degree in Law and Political Science (1999, Magna cum Laude) from the Faculty of Law in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She received her Ph.D. from the Jurisprudence and Social Policy program in UC Berkeley. She is a member of the Parents Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, and active in vaccine advocacy in other ways. She is also a Member of the Vaccine Working Group on Ethics and Policy (https://vaccineworkinggroupethics.org/).

13 thoughts to “Religious Exemptions to Vaccines and the Anti-Vax Movement”

• Pingback: As vaccine mandates unfold, employers and faculties search recommendation on non secular exemptions - Olusolacoker.com
• Pingback: As vaccine mandates spread, employers and colleges seek advice on religious exemptions  – The Fourth Player
• Pingback: As vaccine mandates spread, employers and colleges seek advice on religious exemptions  – AGVESSEL
• Pingback: Why Carefully Designed Public Vaccination Mandates Can—and Should—Withstand Constitutional Challenge – SmallArmsTactical
• Pingback: Do I have a right to refuse to be vaccinated? A look at mRNA vaccine issues. – Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, PC
• Pingback: Un-Conscientious Objections | JEBWizard Publishing
• Pingback: Why American Universities Should Abolish Religious Exemptions for the Covid-19 Vaccine: A Constitutional Analysis - Brown Political Review
• Pingback: Vaccination And Religion – TransparentNT
• Pingback: 4 tips for journalists covering religious exemptions to vaccine mandates – Journalist's Resource - Artcl.us - Daily Tips and Articles
• Pingback: The anti-vax movement's next frontier - Public Good News
• Pingback: Judge orders religious exemption for vaccines in Mississippi - UNIQUEINSPIRED
• Pingback: Opinion: A judge’s infuriating ruling on vaccination puts Mississippi’s children at risk – Med-stat.info
• Pingback: Judge orders religious exemption for vaccines in Mississippi - MED NEWS WATCH

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Sign up for our newsletter

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Religious exemptions and required vaccines: Examining the research

How often do students and employees claim vaccine mandates conflict with their religious beliefs? What are schools doing to discourage exemptions to required childhood vaccines? We look at the research.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource September 29, 2021

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/health/religious-exemptions-covid-vaccine-research/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Even as national surveys show Americans drawing away from religion , more American children are using religion to skip required school vaccinations. 

Even before some California school districts ordered students in certain age groups to get immunized against COVID-19, research showed the percentage of kindergarteners whose parents claim vaccines conflict with their religious beliefs was on the rise.

A December 2019 analysis published in Pediatrics finds an estimated 1.7% of kindergarteners nationwide received religious exemptions to vaccination during the 2017-18 academic year. Four years earlier, 1.1% of kindergarteners did.

Schools, employers and higher education institutions with vaccination mandates typically permit exemptions based on religion or medical reasons. In many states, public and private schools serving kids in kindergarten through 12 th grade also allow exemptions based on personal beliefs or philosophies, which generally allow parents to opt out of vaccines simply because they oppose them.

The American Academy of Pediatrics supports the elimination of childhood vaccine exemptions, except for medical reasons. Six states — California, Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi, New York and West Virginia — prohibit K-12 schools from granting exemptions on religious grounds, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Research, however, suggests that banning one type of exemption leads to an increase in another.

States that offer religious exemptions but do not provide personal belief exemptions are four times as likely to have kindergartners with religious exemptions, compared with states that grant both types of exemption, the December 2019 paper in Pediatrics reveals.  

The authors of that paper note that after Vermont eliminated personal belief exemptions in schools in 2016, the share of kindergartners with religious exemptions increased sevenfold to 3.7%. Scholars call this a “replacement effect,” meaning families seek a different exemption when the type they had been using no longer is available.

“Religious exemptions may be an increasingly problematic or outdated exemption category, and researchers and policy makers must work together to determine how best to balance a respect for religious liberty with the need to protect public health,” write the authors, led by Joshua T. B. Williams , a pediatrician at Denver Health Medical Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

Researchers from Emory University in Atlanta found evidence of a replacement effect when schools prohibit all “nonmedical” exemptions — an umbrella term that applies to religious, philosophical and personal belief exemptions. In 2016, California enacted a law banning nonmedical exemptions in schools. By the second year, medical exemption rates jumped.

“The unintended consequence of an increase in medical exemption rates — which notably tripled in California — highlights a potential pitfall with this approach,” researchers write in the Expert Review of Vaccines in 2019.  

They add that it appears students’ parents and legal guardians “may seek out physicians who are more willing to attest to medical contraindications in the absence of a non-medical exemptions allowance.”

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, an increasing number of schools and higher education institutions are ordering students to get inoculated against COVID-19 . Dozens of companies, including Delta Airlines, Facebook, Uber and Walmart, have mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for employees .

Government officials nationwide also have announced COVID-19 immunization requirements for government workers. Earlier this month, President Joe Biden signed an executive order directing federal employees to get COVID-19 shots.

Immediately after mandates were announced, students and employees started seeking religious and medical exemptions, even as high-ranking faith leaders worldwide urge people to get their shots .

This week, the Los Angeles Police Department drew criticism after news outlets reported that 2,651 of its employees plan to file for religious exemptions to its new vaccine requirement.

In Oregon, 2,284 state employees requested exemptions to the governor’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate — about 5% of the 42,000 employees affected by the requirement. About 90% of those requests were for religious exemptions.

Administrators at hospitals and nursing homes across the country worry the new immunization requirement will lead to staffing shortages as some employees might quit or let themselves be fired rather than get COVID-19 shots. Earlier this month, a hospital in upstate New York announced it planned to shut down its maternity ward because dozens of staff members quit over the vaccine mandate.

To help journalists get a better understanding of how common religious exemptions are among students and workers and get up to speed on schools’ efforts to improve childhood vaccination rates, we’ve gathered and summarized a sampling of academic studies that examine these topics.

The evidence to date suggests:

• A small percentage of employees and students receive religious or medical exemptions.
• When schools stop letting kids skip vaccines for philosophical reasons, more kids seek religious exemptions. When schools ban all exemptions except for medical exemptions, medical exemptions increase.
• Kindergarteners are less likely to get vaccine exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons when schools require their parents to get medical counseling and a signed form from a health care provider before they can be considered for exemptions.

For more on these findings, keep reading.

———

Prevalence of religious exemptions

Current Landscape of Nonmedical Vaccination Exemptions in the United States: Impact of Policy Changes Robert A. Bednarczyk, Adrian R. Kinga, Ariana Lahijania and Saad B. Omer. Expert Review of Vaccines, January 2019.

This paper looks at exemption trends among kindergarten students at public and private schools nationwide between academic years 2011-12 and 2017-18. A main takeaway: Not only are nonmedical exemptions much more common than medical exemptions, a growing percentage of kindergarteners have received nonmedical exemptions.

Nationally, the proportion of kindergarteners who skipped vaccines for reasons connected to religion, philosophy or personal beliefs increased from 1.4% to 1.9% over the study period. The nonmedical exemption rate varied considerably across states. In 2017-18, it ranged from 0.7% of kindergarteners in Indiana to 7.5% in Oregon.

Meanwhile, the percentage of kindergartners with medical exemptions has remained constant — rising by one-tenth of a percentage point between 2011-12 and 2017-18.

The researchers note that private schools historically have higher rates of both types of exemption than have public schools.

They cite three earlier studies to help explain why nonmedical exemptions are on the rise. Those studies, which examine data spanning from 1999 to 2016, indicate a greater number of students obtain nonmedical exemptions when the administrative process is less difficult.

“In three studies, encompassing over 25 years of surveillance, consistent associations were found with higher nonmedical exemption prevalence in states categorized as ‘easy’ or ‘medium’ difficulty for obtaining non-medical exemption, relative to states with higher difficulty … ,” the researchers write.

A Systematic Review of Mandatory Influenza Vaccination in Healthcare Personnel Samantha I. Pitts; et al. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, September 2014.

For this paper, researchers reviewed 12 observational studies on mandatory flu vaccinations for employees of hospitals, outpatient clinics, surgical centers and other health care facilities. While the paper does not focus on exemptions, it does provide insights into their prevalence in the workplace.

Six of the studies report on the percentage of health care personnel who received religious or medical exemptions to the flu vaccine requirement, finding that religious exemptions were less common than medical exemptions at the health care facilities studied. Most of the 12 studies, published or released between 2006 and 2013, look at vaccine requirements at a single hospital or health system.

The percentage of employees who obtained religious exemptions ranged from 0.02% to 2.3%. Meanwhile, 0.3% to 2.6% received medical exemptions.

Efforts to boost child immunization

Evaluating the Effects of Vaccine Messaging on Immunization Intentions and Behavior: Evidence From Two Randomized Controlled Trials in Vermont Katherine Clayton; et al. Vaccine, September 2021.

After Vermont stopped allowing kindergarten students to obtain philosophical exemptions to required vaccines in 2015, the percentage of kindergarten students with religious exemptions swelled sevenfold. In this paper, researchers examine the effectiveness of two communication strategies aimed at encouraging vaccine-hesitant parents to immunize their kids and parents whose children are behind on their vaccines to catch up.

What the researchers learned: Parents did not change their attitudes toward vaccines or indicate they would behave differently after reading a message from the state health department promoting immunization as a social norm or after reading a message correcting common misperceptions about vaccines.

The researchers also determined that the pro-vaccine message Vermont public health officials had been promoting to residents statewide was ineffective.

“These findings corroborate previous research finding limited evidence that messaging strategies change how people think about emotionally charged health issues like vaccinations,” they write.

A total of 678 parents with at least one child aged 10 years and younger and who expressed high levels of vaccine hesitancy participated in the first study. The second study focused on 613 parents of children aged 8 months or 20 months who had not yet received all their scheduled immunizations.

The 2016 California Policy to Eliminate Nonmedical Vaccine Exemptions and Changes in Vaccine Coverage: An Empirical Policy Analysis Sindiso NyathiI; et al. PLOS Medicine, December 2019.

In 2017, the year after California banned nonmedical exemptions in K-12 schools, 3.3% more students entered kindergarten with their measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccinations statewide, compared against states that did not eliminate nonmedical exemptions in schools, this paper finds.

Researchers also learned that while nonmedical exemptions fell in California, the percentage of kindergarteners obtaining medical exemptions grew 0.4%.

“Although the rise in medical exemptions could indicate that some children who may have received nonmedical exemptions in the past are now receiving medical exemptions, the net effect following the California policy was still an increase in vaccination coverage,” the researchers write.

They note that even small increases in vaccine coverage can help communities achieve herd immunity levels of 90% to 95% vaccine coverage. In 2015, 24 counties in California had MMR coverage levels below the range needed for herd immunity, according to the analysis, based on state-level data from the CDC and county-level data provided by state departments of health. In 2017, 12 counties had coverage levels that fell short of herd immunity levels.

Exemptions From Mandatory Immunization After Legally Mandated Parental Counseling Saad B. Omer; et al. Pediatrics, January 2018.

Fewer students make requests for vaccine exemptions when the process for obtaining one becomes more difficult, this study suggests. The number of Washington kindergarteners who obtained any type of vaccine exemption dropped considerably after the state began requiring parents to get medical counseling and a signed form from a licensed health care provider before kids could be considered for exemptions.

The authors examined exemption rates for kindergarteners statewide from the 1997-98 academic year through 2013-14. After the state enacted Senate Bill 5005 in 2011, the vaccine exemption rate fell 2.9 percentage points statewide and stayed there through the end of the study period.

“This highlights the importance of more stringent polices for obtaining immunization exemptions,” the authors write.

They point out that discussions between health care providers and parents help correct misinformation about vaccines. However, they add that “the effect of this policy change might be caused by an increase in administrative difficulty of obtaining an exemption, rather than by persuasive interpersonal communications.”

Looking for more on COVID-19 vaccines? The Journalist’s Resource also has gathered research on vaccine hesitancy , COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy and the role teachers and staff play in COVID-19 outbreaks on campus.

Also, please check out our tip sheet on covering religious exemptions .

We obtained this image from the Flickr account of  Pamela Drew . It is being used under a  Creative Commons license . No changes were made.

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

How Do Religious Vaccine Exemptions Really Work?

And how do you prevent people from abusing them.

In May, Greg Locke, the right-wing evangelical head pastor of Tennessee’s Baptist Global Vision Bible Church, told a cheering congregation that “elites” were trying to push an unsafe vaccine on the public while injecting themselves with sugar water. “I know some of you, like, ‘My goodness! What am I gonna—my boss told me that if I don’t get the vaccination that I’m gonna lose my job,’” he said. “I can write you a religious exemption, and we will sue their stinkin’ pants off!”

Locke is certainly not the only faith leader promoting anti-vax objections in the guise of religious concerns. A pastor in Riverside County, California, told his congregation in the spring that the vaccine was “unclean” and directed them to a downloadable form Christians could use to claim religious exemptions. Some Catholic clergy and groups have made such resources available, despite the pope’s very clear position on the matter; the Colorado Catholic Conference even published a template for Catholics seeking religious exemptions. Other churches have offered the same.

No major religions have expressed anything but support for the vaccine, but the rising number of vaccine mandates across the United States has spurred both the faithful and faith leaders to seek out and promote religious exemptions for the vaccine. While people like Locke make the concept sound simple, the reality is that there are no standard practices for determining or even allowing religious exemptions to vaccines. The idea of a religious exemption as a concept has a long and complicated history in the U.S., but it has rarely, and possibly never, come up against something as massive and urgent as the coronavirus pandemic. The reality is that religion is a powerful thing to wield, but it’s not necessarily a magic bullet.

So when and where do exemptions work? The easiest answer is: wherever someone wants to offer one, given that it’s not clear anyone actually has to.

When businesses implement vaccine mandates for their employees, they are coming up with policies on the fly. Many add in language about a religious exemption on the advice of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has recommended that employers make reasonable efforts to accommodate employees with “sincerely held religious beliefs” to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. But even employers who don’t specify that there are religious exemptions may quickly cave when presented with a religious objection. Given the number of people raring to sue over the vaccine mandates, it wouldn’t be surprising if some businesses opted to offer exemptions to avoid getting lawyers involved.

In the public sphere, things are similarly vague. Many states already have statutes guaranteeing religious exemptions for vaccines. When it came to mandates for public schools and government employees, the exemptions were often automatically built in. The U.S. military, which will begin requiring vaccines in the fall, has a formal process by which members request a religious exemption. The requirements can vary state by state, city by city, institution by institution.

According to legal experts, it’s still an open question if anyone has to offer religious exemptions. While some argue that Title VII protections for employees include allowing religious exemptions for vaccines, others argue that an employer only has to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if they do not amount to an undue hardship—a caveat that could certainly be applied to the heightened risk of transmitting COVID. An employer may also choose to accommodate the employee by making them wear masks, social distance, take frequent COVID tests, and otherwise operate by different rules than vaccinated employees. And Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, a professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who studies vaccines and the law, said that she has seen more lawsuits directed against institutions that gave religious exemptions but denied specific individuals. It’s possible employers may be safer by giving no ground at all, she said.

While some religious liberty advocates claim that the First Amendment protects any government employees making such claims, the current precedent holds that as long as a law is generally applicable and on its face neutral, it doesn’t amount to religious discrimination. This is particularly the case when the government has a real and compelling reason, such as public health, to refuse exemptions—which legal scholars say certainly applies here. “I am about as strong a supporter of religious exemptions as you can find in legal academia,” said Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, in an email. “And I think that under the general law of religious liberty, including the Constitution and state and federal RFRAs , vaccination is an easy case for refusing exemption.” Vaccine mandates are new territory, but courts so far seem to agree. “Increasingly, people are dropping religious exemptions,” said Michael Hayes, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. “So I think that’s going to be the trend, except for one judge here or there who might go in favor of religion.”

Universities have so far indicated nervousness about religious claims, even though a judge has ruled that Indiana University, which did offer religious exemptions, could implement neutral COVID restrictions and that its religious exemption was not a constitutional requirement. It’s not clear if the current Supreme Court will want to tighten the protections around religious exemptions, though, so some public institutions may offer them to be safe.

But there’s another big legal question surrounding these claims: how to police them. Some courts have indicated that they would be more lenient with sincere religious objections. Others say it’s wrong for a court to decide what beliefs are sincere. While in some cases it’s evident when a person is using religion as a cover, other times it’s impossible to tell. When a Sacramento-area megachurch pastor began offering religious exemptions letters, he insisted they were “issued to individuals who have a sincere belief.”

Making it all harder, courts have said a person’s religious beliefs don’t have to align with the institution’s official doctrine. “The way the law is makes policing this a nightmare,” said Reiss. “You’re not there to enforce the rules of the religion. You also can’t assess whether their belief makes sense. The question is, are they sincere, not rational.” So while the pope has explicitly called on the faithful to be vaccinated as an “act of love,” and while the Archdioceses of New York , Honolulu , Philadelphia , Chicago , and Los Angeles and the bishops of San Diego and Lexington, Kentucky , have ordered their priests not to grant religious exemptions (and the Lexington bishop mandated vaccines for all diocese employees), individual Catholics can still very well claim that their objection to the vaccine is rooted in their religious beliefs . The same goes for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which called for all its members—who resist vaccination at a similar rate to white evangelicals—to be vaccinated. Statements from Franklin Graham and the National Association of Evangelicals are irrelevant to the Christians they lead. All that matters, as far as the law sees it, is an individual’s claim to an honest belief.

But setting these debates aside, there are practical reasons anti-vaxxers might seek out letters from faith leaders. Employers, or even state and municipal laws, may ask for proof of a person’s religious belief to support their claim. The Rush University Medical Center in Chicago has formed a committee to review religious exemption requests from its employees, according to the Washington Post . The committee includes medical, legal, labor, and human resources experts, as well as “the hospital’s lead chaplain, a tenured professor who chairs the university’s department of religion, health and human values.” According to the Post, the hospital asks employees to provide letters from a religious institution if that is the source of the complaint; if not, they’ll be quizzed on the specifics of their faith and their reasoning for the objection. The military, which like hospitals has extra motivation not to be duped by anti-vaxxers in its midst, will pull together a panel that includes chaplains to examine individual claims. The application process also requires service members to provide documented proof of religious beliefs and face questioning over whether they truly belong to a legitimate religion, why their religion leads to such objections, and whether their opposition to vaccines is a new development.

There are groups for which such claims aren’t so immediately suspect. Christian Scientists, for example, aren’t keen on vaccines. Nor are Dutch Reformed Congregations and a number of faith healing Christian denominations. But those groups have so far been fairly level-headed in their response; while in the last century the Christian Scientists spearheaded campaigns for religious exemptions, they currently counsel their members to “respect…public health authorities” and “cooperate with measures considered necessary by public health officials.” Conservative Catholics may be genuine in their ethical quibbles over the vaccine’s distant connection to fetal cell lines, but many of their fellow Catholics suspect that the unease that led them there is as much political as it is religious.

Given the scarcity of evidence for legitimate religious opposition and overwhelming evidence for abuse of the concept, many experts feel that institutions should try not to give too much ground. Even with the tests probing the authenticity of the claims, Reiss said, the system as it exists does little to discourage dishonesty. “In an area where we have people gaming and willing to help others game the system, it’s asking for abuse and privileging the better liars over the less sophisticated liars,” she said. “You end up with a system where those who know where to look for help or know how to ask for help get religious exemptions.”

Outside of religious institutions, a network has emerged to help those seeking to manipulate the system. Facebook groups and blogs offer advice on how to fake claims. Some more ambitious anti-vaxxers offer workshops. Louisiana’s attorney general sent his employees an email telling them how to use religious exemptions to get their children out of potential school mask and vaccine mandates. “There is anecdotal and survey evidence that most claims to religious motivation for refusing vaccination are false,” Laycock said.

While it seems that disingenuous anti-vaxxers may have the upper hand as things stand, Reiss has another solution: get rid of religious exemptions and offer exemptions instead to anyone who wants one for any reason—but make them hard to get. Already, the military plans to have active-duty military members take mandatory counseling to learn about the vaccine and discuss ways their assignments and travel may be negatively affected by their refusal. This same philosophy could be applied elsewhere. As an example, she said, employees could be required to take a multi-day online course and quiz dedicated to the vaccine and COVID. “Then,” she said, “you’re not forcing people to lie about their religion.”

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

I’m a Former Pastor, and I Don’t Believe in ‘Religious Exemptions’ to Vaccine Mandates

By Curtis Chang

Curtis Chang is a co-founder of Christians and the Vaccine, a consulting faculty member at Duke Divinity School and the C.E.O. of CWR, a management consultancy serving secular nonprofits and government agencies.

Religious exemptions to employer mandates are a precious right in our democracy. This is why it is especially important not to offer such exemptions to coronavirus vaccine mandates. They make a mockery of Christianity and religious liberty.

Now that the Food and Drug Administration has fully approved the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, government agencies, universities and businesses are instituting vaccination requirements. This has prompted a wave of requests from individuals to opt out of such requirements by claiming a religious exemption.

The legal basis of this request is Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act , which requires American employers to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs. One evangelical church near Sacramento has reportedly issued more than 3,000 letters requesting exemptions, and a pastor in Brooklyn told The New York Daily News that 60 percent of his congregation has asked for them. Given that evangelicals account for a substantial portion of people refusing vaccination, especially in the Delta-ravaged Bible Belt, the road to ending the pandemic may very well now run through the religious exemption issue.

According to the Civil Rights Act, these exemptions are meant to apply to people with “sincerely held religious beliefs,” and on both counts — religious belief and sincerity — the exemption demand fails when it comes to coronavirus vaccine mandates for Christians.

First, there is no actual religious basis for exemptions from vaccine mandates in any established stream of Christianity. Within both Catholicism and all the major Protestant denominations, no creed or Scripture in any way prohibits Christians from getting the vaccine. Even the sect of Christian Scientists, which historically has abstained from medical treatment, has expressed openness to vaccines for the sake of the wider community. The consensus of mainstream Christian leaders — from Pope Francis to Franklin Graham — is that vaccination is consistent with biblical Christian faith.

Biblically based arguments against vaccination have been rebutted. The project Christians and the Vaccine , which I helped to found, has created numerous explainer videos in an effort to refute attempts by anti-vax Christians to hijack pro-life values , to distort biblical references like the “mark of the beast” and to inflame fears about government control . Christians who request religious exemptions rarely even try to offer substantive biblical and theological reasoning. Rather, the drivers for evangelical resistance are nonreligious and are rooted in deep-seated suspicion of government and vulnerability to misinformation.

My plea to my fellow Christians: If you insist on refusing the vaccine, that is your right. But please do not bring God into it. Doing so is the very definition of violating the Third Commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

A private entity like a hospital can feel confident that it is not infringing on the religious liberty of an evangelical receptionist by insisting that he be vaccinated as part of his job requirement. My religious liberty is actually advanced by the ability of institutions to define job requirements for their employees. I want my church to be able to hire pastors who share our institution’s beliefs — and to be able to reject candidates who don’t. This means I must also support the right of a secular hospital to make a similar choice. Moral consistency demands it.

Exemption requests also likely fail on the grounds of sincere belief. We naturally look for consistency of a belief as a test of sincerity; it’s common sense. We would doubt the sincerity of a receptionist who demands vegetarian options at a workplace cafeteria when he frequently eats steak at restaurants. Any institution considering religious exemptions should require applicants to demonstrate that they have consistently refused other immunizations for religious reasons.

Vaccine hesitancy has never been a core religious belief of evangelical Christians. The vast majority of evangelicals have historically chosen to be immunized against polio, measles, tetanus and other diseases. As a child, I attended evangelical summer camps that required vaccinations, and as an adult, I worked for ministries with similar mandates. Some conservative evangelicals just don’t like the political taste of this particular vaccine on the menu.

Even if we grant that individual Christians sincerely (though mistakenly) believe that their religious faith prohibits a coronavirus vaccination, that still does not justify an exemption. “Sincerity” does not justify putting others at risk. I can sincerely (though mistakenly) believe I should sacrifice a burnt offering to God. All the sincerity in my heart does not justify my setting my neighbor’s house on fire in the process.

There are, however, proper applications for religious exemptions in other cases. For instance, if my employer offered a mindfulness seminar that required me to utter incantations to a New Age deity, I as a Christian should be able to request a religious exemption. The biggest threat to any legitimate right is the illegitimate abuse of that right.

But even with legitimate religious claims sincerely held, the law allows companies to forgo offering exemptions if doing so places an “undue hardship” on the employer. Increasing the risk of bringing an infectious disease into the workplace certainly qualifies. For jobs that involve exposure to vulnerable populations, minimizing that risk via immunization is clearly an appropriate job requirement. Religious freedom for a teacher who opposes vaccines does not mean having the right to jeopardize children by being unvaccinated. Religious freedom means that if she doesn’t wish to fulfill her employer’s job requirement, she is free to find another job.

All employers should eliminate any religious exemptions for coronavirus vaccines for Christians, period. New York State has removed its religious exemption option for health care workers, and other institutions should follow suit.

Similarly, religious leaders will need to join with secular institutions in opposing exemptions. Pastors are already being inundated with requests for letters supporting exemptions. As a former pastor of an evangelical church, I know it will be difficult to say “no.” But my colleagues should do the right thing and refuse such requests. Refuse to mislead our secular neighbors. Refuse to abuse our precious religious liberty. Refuse to be complicit in putting our neighbors at risk.

We need to keep trying to persuade those hesitant to get a vaccine. But we also need to allow employer vaccine mandates to erect a trustworthy shield that protects staff members, patients, customers, students and others. Religious exemptions risk blowing a hole in that shield, jeopardizing everyone.

The vaccine effort has been plagued by falsehoods of all kinds. The religious exemption from vaccine mandates for Christians is the latest lie. All of us should stand together for the truth.

Curtis Chang is a co-founder of Christians and the Vaccine, a consulting faculty member at Duke Divinity School and the CEO of CWR , a management consulting firm serving secular nonprofits and government agencies.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Here's what religions say on COVID-19 vaccines and which ones have exemptions

There is a lot of discussion about religious reasons for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine , but in reality, there are actually very few religions who have documented, doctrinal reasons for not believing in immunizations.

Despite the fact that it has been dominating national news,  evangelical Christianity isn’t one of them.

Still, some Christians and other people of faith are citing their religion as a reason why they won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.

'The value of instilling hope': Columbus faith leaders trained in suicide prevention

White evangelical Protestants are the only religious group that didn't reach a majority when asked in a  Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC) poll if they believe they should get vaccinated because it "helps protect everyone" and "is a way to live out the religious principle of loving my neighbors."

Only 43% of white evangelical Protestants agreed with those statements, compared to 56% of Black Protestants and 61% of Hispanic Protestants, according to the survey.

Searching for more meaning in your life? You might want a spiritual director

One way white evangelical Protestants say their faith is against the vaccine is by talking of eternal life, like Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves did in late August.

“When you believe in eternal life — when you believe that living on this earth is but a blip on the screen — then you don’t have to be so scared of things,” Reeves said. 

That belief, that God controls everything, is a core belief of evangelicals, said PRRI Director of Research Natalie Jackson.

Most religions don't prohibit vaccines

There are many religious arguments for and against the COVID-19 vaccination. Here are some of the major religions' beliefs about it:

Catholicism

Catholic officials expressed initial concerns about the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but ultimately said Catholics could still get the vaccine if it was the only one available.

In a March statement, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said "being vaccinated can be an act of charity that serves the common good.”

"Puzzling": Use of cell lines from aborted fetuses to create vaccine 'serious disappointment' to Columbus Catholic Bishop, others

Almost 80% of white Catholics were accepting of the vaccine in July, according to a PRRI study, and Hispanic Catholics were one of the religious groups whose vaccine acceptance increased the most. It went from 56% in March to 80% in June, according to PRRI.

Other Christians

Christians, not including Catholics, were 77% accepting of vaccines, according to PRRI's release in July.

COVID quandary: Retailers grapple with mask use as cases rise again

The vast majority of Christian denominations have no theological opposition to vaccines, including Eastern Orthodox, Amish, Anglican, Baptist, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Quakers and Pentecostal Christians, according to Vanderbilt University Medical Center research. 

Christian denominations with a theological opposition to vaccination

The only Christian denominations who cite a theological reason for opposing vaccines are the Dutch Reformed Church and Church of Christ, Scientist, according to Vanderbilt. 

Some members of the Dutch Reformed Church decline vaccines because it "interferes with divine providence," while others accept it as a gift from God, Vanderbilt research shows.

Personal freedom?: As COVID-19 cases increase in Ohio, politicians blast vaccine mandates

Other research points to illnesses from smallpox vaccines in the 19th century as a reason some in the religion do not want vaccines. 

Denominations that believe in faith healing, or laying hands on people in order to heal their illnesses, also likely don't believe in vaccines.

Church of Christ, Scientist, teaches that prayer will alleviate and prevent disease, so members may request vaccine exemptions, the Vanderbilt research shows. The denomination doesn't strictly prohibit vaccination, though.

Vaccine mandates: Ohio State now requiring the COVID-19 vaccine. Will other universities follow?

In a release on the church's website, officials say that most members rely on prayer for healing.

"So we’ve appreciated vaccination exemptions and sought to use them conscientiously and responsibly, when they have been granted," the release states. "Church members are free to make their own choices on all life-decisions, in obedience to the law, including whether or not to vaccinate their children. These aren’t decisions imposed by their church."

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) released information encouraging people to get the vaccine and to take other precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Eager to vaccinate: Ohio State partnership helps immigrants set up COVID vaccines

"One of the highest objectives of Islamic law is to preserve and protect human life," said Imam Mohamed Magid, former president of the ISNA and the executive imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society Center in Sterling, Virginia. 

Magid spoke for a Religion News Service (RNS) recorded interview on the COVID-19 vaccine in January.

Hesitation: Undocumented immigrants' fear of arrest, deportation may keep them from COVID-19 vaccine

"Muslims have done preventive medicine throughout history, and Muslims are among the first people to believe in the idea of vaccination," Magid said, according to RNS. 

"The idea of preventing harm comes from the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who said, if there's any contagious disease in a city, you should not enter that city or leave it. If you contract that sickness, you should not go on to spread it. This is the theological foundation for vaccination."

Early on during COVID-19 vaccination efforts, there were concerns expressed that pork products — which the religion forbids followers to consume — might be in the vaccines. ISNA said in its release that the vaccines don't contain pork products. 

Jewish people support vaccination, as one of the most important tenets of the religion is preserving life. Protecting one's health is a mitzvah, or obligation, according to Chabad.org. 

Praying safely: Vaccines, masks to be required at many Jewish High Holiday services in Columbus area

"It is not enough to deal with health issues as they arise; we must take precautions to avoid danger," the site states.

The Central Conference of American Rabbis , the Union for Reform Judaism and the Orthodox Union all released statements supporting vaccination.

Many Columbus synagogues, of all denominations, are requiring vaccines and masks at High Holiday services this year.

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

• Administrative & Regulatory
• Coronavirus News
• Labor & Employment
• All Federal

Employers nationwide are implementing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies in light of the September 9, 2021 announcement of President Biden’s “Path Out of the Pandemic” COVID-19 Action Plan. In turn, employers are increasingly receiving requests from employees for exemptions from these mandatory vaccine policies for a wide variety of reasons, including medical, social, political, economic, and personal, as well as religious reasons.

In considering employee requests for an exemption from a vaccine mandate for religious reasons, employers need to consider the request under both state and federal law. While both the state Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under federal law recognize religious exemptions, the consideration under each has some differences.

The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act requires consideration under its prohibition of discrimination on the basis of creed. Under Wisconsin law, “creed” is defined as “a system of religious beliefs, including moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong, that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views”.  See  111.32 (3m), Wis. Stats. Sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs about right or wrong having the strength of religious views are protected, but may not need to be religious based as traditionally viewed.

On October 25, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) updated its  Technical Assistance  document to provide employers guidance on considering religious exemptions to vaccine mandates under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In its update, the EEOC has confirmed that in the context of religious accommodation issues, Title VII applies to requests for religious accommodation, but does not require employers to grant merely social, political, economic or personal-preference based requests. Moreover, the EEOC confirmed that under Title VII, employers need only consider exemptions for employees who raise religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine where such objections are based on sincerely held religious beliefs, customs, or practices. Additionally, for Title VII purposes, the EEOC clarified that employees are not entitled to a religious exemption if it would pose an “undue hardship” on the business, including the risk of spread of COVID-19 to other employees or to the public.

The following is a high-level summary of key points from the EEOC’s new guidance on exemption requests to mandatory vaccine policies based on religious objections:

While no “magic words” are required, in order to be considered for an exemption, the employee must notify the employer of the need for an exemption based on sincerely held religious beliefs, customs, or practices.

The employer retains the right to request additional information where needed to make an objective determination as to whether the request is both religious-based and sincerely held.

An employer need not provide an exemption from a vaccine mandate if it would constitute an “undue hardship” on the employer’s operations: Even a minimal burden or cost is considered an “undue hardship.”

Exemption requests must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine eligibility for an exemption based on the specific factual context of the request.

If an employee is entitled to an exemption, an employer may choose from several accommodations as long as the chosen accommodation resolves the conflict between the COVID-19 vaccine requirement and the sincerely held religious beliefs of the employee.

An exemption, if granted, can be revoked if changing circumstances allow. If an accommodation becomes an “undue hardship” or it is no longer being used for religious purposes, an employer can revoke the accommodation.

Employer Takeaways in Light of Updated EEOC Guidance and Consideration under State Law

With COVID-19 vaccination policies likely becoming mandatory for most large employers with 100 or more employees in the near future, employers should consider what their COVID-19 vaccination policy will cover.

Religious accommodations are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to COVID-19 vaccination considerations. There are OSHA considerations, medical and disability-related concerns, employee morale considerations, and numerous other state and federal requirements that employers must be aware of when crafting a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

At a minimum, any mandatory COVID-19 policy should clarify:

Which employees are subject to the policy

The consequences for failing to comply

The procedures and processes for requesting an accommodation

Whether the policy adheres to what is minimally required by law, or grants additional exemptions

What type of documentation is useful for helping the employer consider a religious or medical exemption request

Clear timelines for submission of requests and communication expectations

The employer's right to consider an undue burden.

Establish a consistent protocol for evaluating religious and other exemption requests that may include:

An internal or external review process to ensure each accommodation request is reviewed and analyzed independently

Templates to use in analyzing requests

Training to recognize and distinguish between religious-based requests as opposed to personal or political-based requests

Guidelines as to what documentation may or may not be requested

Confidentiality protocols and safeguards

Uniform expectations and common questions to be directed to employees making requests for exemption

Guidelines for analyzing an undue burden

Templates for communicating a decision.

As always, while general guidelines and principles are helpful, ultimately, each accommodation request is unique. The law requires an individualized analysis for each request.

Current Legal Analysis

More from von briesen & roper, s.c., upcoming legal education events.

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

• Book a Speaker

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Religious Exemption from COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Would Cause Undue Hardship

​The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that seven health care workers' claim that their employers violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying them a religious exemption from Maine's COVID-19 vaccination mandate was properly dismissed. Granting the exemptions would cause the employers undue hardship, the appeals court decided.

Since 1989, Maine law has required certain licensed health care facilities to ensure that employees are vaccinated against various diseases, including measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis B and influenza. The law allowed exemptions from these vaccination requirements if an employee provided: a physician's written statement that immunization against one or more diseases might be medically inadvisable; or a written statement that vaccination was contrary to a sincere religious or philosophical belief.

In 2019, the state legislature amended the law, eliminating the religious and philosophical exemptions, and in 2021 added COVID-19 to the list of diseases for which health care employees must be vaccinated.

The plaintiffs were employed by various covered health care facilities and alleged that their sincerely held religious beliefs prevented them from receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. They objected because of the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses in the vaccines' development and production, which conflicts with the employees' belief "that all life is sacred, from the moment of conception to natural death, and that abortion is a grave sin against God and the murder of an innocent life." The employees did not challenge the requirement to be vaccinated against the other diseases.

Each employee requested a religious exemption and accommodation from their employer to be excused from receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. They offered to comply with other health and safety requirements to facilitate their religious exemption, such as wearing facial coverings, submitting to reasonable testing and reporting requirements, and monitoring for COVID-19 symptoms. However, the health care facilities denied the requests, saying that the state vaccination mandate did not permit religious exemption. When the employees continued to refuse to be vaccinated, they were terminated from employment.

The employees then filed a suit against the health care providers, claiming that the refusal to accommodate their religious beliefs by exempting them from the COVID-19 vaccination mandate was unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII. The employees also filed a claim against three state officials and the employers, asserting that the vaccination requirement violated their rights under the Free Exercise and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution by allowing medical but not religious exemptions.

Court Reponse

The district court dismissed the charges. It found that the health care facilities could not have offered the requested religious accommodation without violating state law and risking onerous penalties, creating an undue hardship that precludes liability under Title VII. And it found the vaccine mandate is a religiously neutral law of general applicability rationally related to Maine's legitimate public health interests, and so does not violate the Free Exercise or Equal Protection Clauses.

The health care employees then appealed to the 1st Circuit.

In reviewing the Title VII religious accommodation claim, the appeals court noted that the standard at the time of the hearing for undue hardship was that it be more than de minimis but acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court had heard arguments asking it to reconsider that standard—since revised by the Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy on June 29, 2023.

But the court explained that its ruling did not depend on the de minimis formulation, since the employees' requested accommodation would constitute an undue hardship under any plausible interpretation of statutory text. Ruling that the consequences of granting the employees a religious exemption would clearly impose an undue hardship by creating a substantial risk of enforcement, fines and license suspension, the 1st Circuit dismissed the employees' Title VII claims.

The appeals court found that the health care employers would most likely risk loss of their state operating licenses if they granted the employees their requested religious exemptions. In fact, the court noted, plaintiffs themselves had noted that the governor had issued a press statement threatening "to revoke the licenses of all health care employers who failed to mandate all employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine." In addition, the court noted that the facilities could be liable for significant fines of up to $1,000 per violation per day.

However, the court ruled that the workers' claim for relief under the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution was plausible, because "the mandate allows some number of unvaccinated individuals to continue working in health care facilities based on medical exemptions while refusing to allow individuals to continue working while unvaccinated for religious reasons." That claim was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Lowe v. Mills , No. 22-1710 (May 25, 2023).

Robert S. Teachout, SHRM-SCP, works in the Washington D.C., area and is a legal editor for Brightmine HR & Compliance Centre™, a service helping HR build successful and purposeful workplaces.

Related Content

Rising Demand for Workforce AI Skills Leads to Calls for Upskilling

As artificial intelligence technology continues to develop, the demand for workers with the ability to work alongside and manage AI systems will increase. This means that workers who are not able to adapt and learn these new skills will be left behind in the job market.

Employers Want New Grads with AI Experience, Knowledge

A vast majority of U.S. professionals say students entering the workforce should have experience using AI and be prepared to use it in the workplace, and they expect higher education to play a critical role in that preparation.

Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

​An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.

Workplace Compliance Newsletter

Summaries of legal decisions, legislative news and regulatory news, delivered Friday afternoons.

Success title

Success caption

Aviation Worker Advances Covid-19 Vaccine Bias, Overtime Claims

By Jennifer Bennett

Pentastar Aviation LLC must face allegations that it discriminated against a religious flight attendant who sought a Covid-19 vaccine mandate exemption and ran afoul of overtime protections, a federal judge said.

The worker sufficiently pleaded religious accommodation and disparate treatment claims, and her complaint adequately alleged that the aviation company, which she says exclusively serves General Motors Co., willfully failed to properly pay her—and other flight attendants—for their overtime hours, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan said .

Plaintiff Laura Horne unsuccessfully asked Pentastar to exempt her from its vaccine mandate because of her religious beliefs. ...

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.