I yesterday shared my opinion on why SB 460 is a flawed policy decision—specifically, its attempt to prevent private and parochial schools from determining their own policies on granting religious or philosophical exemptions for vaccines required for admission.
I stand by that position. The state should have no role in these decisions; governance boards of private and parochial schools should retain that authority and be left to prosper or fail based on market forces. That said, one might assume this means I support allowing such exemptions in public schools. I do not.
A Few Key Points
1. The Science is Clear. Vaccines significantly reduce the risk of disease, but they are not 100% effective. Even vaccinated children can contract illnesses. However, unvaccinated children are at a higher risk of both contracting and spreading disease—often at a faster rate than their vaccinated peers. Clusters of unvaccinated children increase risk factors for everyone, including those who are vaccinated.
2. We Live in a Republic, Not a Pure Democracy. Our system of government is built on the principle that we voluntarily surrender certain freedoms to maintain a just and orderly society governed by the rule of law. A pure democracy—where every decision is dictated by majority rule—would be chaotic. If you think cancel culture is disruptive, imagine the consequences of mob rule in every aspect of governance.
3. Personal Freedom Has Limits. The Constitution establishes a social compact among citizens, recognizing that personal freedom ends where it infringes on another’s rights. This principle is fundamental yet often ignored in the vaccine exemption debate. If someone claims a religious or philosophical exemption as a personal right, they must also acknowledge that their choice imposes on the rights of others—specifically, the right of vaccinated children to attend school without unnecessary exposure to preventable diseases. That contradiction cannot be ignored.
Personally, I wish the issue would have died when then Governor Justice vetoed the bill last year. Jim had it right. But the reality is different. This bill is moving. So, where does that leave us? Logic dictates that if one person need not suffer for another to exercise their freedoms, a middle ground must be found.
Here’s the solution unfortunate as it may be: If the goal is to honor religious and conscientious objections, then fine—allow exemptions. But do so with the understanding that unvaccinated children would not be permitted to attend a public school or a private/parochial school that mandates vaccination.
Thanks to the Hope Scholarship, parents of unvaccinated children could band together to form a private or parochial school that aligns with their beliefs or opt for homeschooling as an alternative. Everyone wins—exemptions remain available, parental choice is preserved, and the state still upholds its constitutional duty to provide an education for all children.
Of course, this will not prevent inevitable outbreaks among unvaccinated children. And for the record, I sincerely hope that doesn’t happen. But this approach would, to some degree (what do we do when all the kids are at the bouncy house place), protect vaccinated children—those whose parents rightfully wish to shield them from the perils of diseases long eradicated.
This is not just a policy debate; it is a question of balancing individual freedom with public responsibility. We cannot afford to get that balance wrong.