Bill would require written explanation of conflict with 'religious tents or practices'
Sen. Loretta Weinberg in this January file photo. Weinberg (D-Bergen) has sponsored a bill that would curtail the number of parents claiming religious exemptions from giving their children mandatory vaccinations.TRENTON — A Senate panel today advanced a bill intended to curtail the number of parents claiming religious exemptions from giving their children mandatory vaccinations.
The bill (S2625) would require parents or students over the age of 18 to submit a letter to their schools explaining how the state’s vaccine requirements conflict with the “bona fide religious tenets or practices of the student.”
“By adding the words ‘bona fide,’ we certainly would be suggesting that you should not use the religious exemption just as an excuse,” said state Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), the sponsor.
It was approved by the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee by a vote of six to one, with one abstention.
The number of parents claiming religious exemptions to vaccine requirements has soared in recent years. In the 2005-2006 school year, 1,644 claimed religious exemptions. Four years later, 3,865 claimed them.
Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk (R-Bergen), who is critical of the state’s vaccination policy, raised questions about the bill’s constitutionality and presented a memo from the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services that said the bill would likely be ruled unconstitutional if anyone tried to determine whether a religious belief was legitimate. Vandervalk said use of the words “bona fide” implies someone would decide whether one religion is valid while another is not.
Vandervalk also said the bill differs from current law only by adding the phrase, since parents are already required to claim a religious exemption in writing.
“When you say bona fide, it draws to mind that someone could challenge what is bona fide, what is not bona fide. And that is unconstitutional,” she said.
Weinberg, however, said no local officials would be given any more authority than they currently have in deciding what a legitimate religious exemption is.
Renee Steinhagen, executive director of the public interest law group New Jersey Appleseed, said requiring parents to demonstrate their religious belief is sincere is constitutional, though having a board determine whether their particular religion is legitimate would be unconstitutional.
“Sincere does not mean that you have to belong to an established religion,” she said.
The bill would also explicitly outlaw exemptions based on philosophical or moral grounds, which are not currently allowed.
Vandervalk sponsors a bill in the Assembly (A243) that would do the opposite by allowing parents to claim a conscientious objection to any and all required vaccines. The bill had a hearing last week in the lower house, but Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee chairman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington) refused to hold a vote on it.