Catholic mother denied vaccine exemption in New York

She had asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a temporary injunction so her son could start kindergarten as the fight continues in court.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week denied an emergency request that would have allowed a Catholic mother in New York to send her 5-year-old son to kindergarten without the vaccinations required by state law.

The mother, identified in court papers as Jane Doe, wanted her son, C.F., to start at Waverly School in Eastchester this month and is seeking a religious exemption to required vaccines. New York dropped religious exemptions from school vaccine rules in 2019 after a measles outbreak, however, though medical exemptions remain.

Doe had asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction so C.F. could start school as the fight continues in court.

Two other courts had already denied her request for a temporary injunction. A federal judge in New York and then a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit panel turned her down. The application was then presented to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the circuit justice for the 2nd Circuit, who referred it to the full Supreme Court, which denied it. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have granted it.

The unsigned order does not address the case’s merits, and Doe’s underlying appeal remains pending in the 2nd Circuit.

State officials have said a religious carve-out would undercut efforts to keep disease from spreading among children, pointing to an earlier appeals court ruling that left the vaccine law in place.

Doe, who is Catholic, says the state policy puts her faith and her child’s schooling at odds. In an April statement she gave the school, she wrote that her beliefs now “require me to categorically refuse vaccination for myself and for my children.”

Referring to the abortions from which fetal cells were taken to produce the original vaccines, she said: “The taking of an innocent human life is a grave sin. My Catholic beliefs have always held this.” She said that for her and her son, vaccination would be “a genuine, serious sin.”

“I will not do it,” she stated.

She also expressed serious reservations about other aspects of vaccine development: “Defiling the blood by mixing it with the blood of animals, with the remains of aborted human beings, or with foreign biological material, violates God’s Word,” she said, according to her statement of religious beliefs filed in the case. “Vaccination injects biological material derived from unclean sources directly into the bloodstream. My faith forbids this.”

Church teaching on conscience and vaccination

While the Church does not teach that the use of biological materials from nonhuman animals is categorically wrong, it absolutely condemns abortion and the use of tissue from aborted fetuses used to create the original cell lines. It teaches that a parent may receive or give a child a vaccine developed with those cell lines when there is no alternative and there is a serious health reason. The vaccine recipient’s participation in the evil act of abortion, the Church teaches, is “remote,” and therefore permitted.

However, in the 2008 instruction Dignitas Personae, the Church said that Catholics utilizing vaccines have “a duty” to let drugmakers and their healthcare providers know they oppose the way the vaccines were developed and demand vaccines created without the use of aborted fetal cells.

A 2020 note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says vaccination “is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.” Those who refuse for reasons of conscience, it adds, should take other steps so they do not spread disease.

New York law has a provision that children unvaccinated for medical reasons must stay at home during outbreaks, and Doe agreed to abide by that if granted an exemption.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a person must not be forced to act against a conscience formed well through Scripture, reason, and Church teaching, even when others would make a different choice. Forcing one to act against his or her conscience could be a sin against charity, which calls for others to respect the consciences of others.

The catechism also teaches that “[m]an has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience.’”