48 of America’s 50 states have laws allowing children who attend public school to do so without being vaccinated—if they have religious reasons. In 20 of those states, you can also avoid vaccination if your exemption is based on philosophical reasons. Every other kid, save those with medical exemptions—compromised immune systems and the like—must be vaccinated, and for good reason. We know what happens when vaccinations aren’t required, and we’re starting to see those epidemics.

The two states that don’t allow either philosophical or religious exemptions from vaccination are, surprisingly, West Virginia and Mississippi. California is poised to join these two, as its state senate just approved a no-exemption bill by a huge margin (medical exemptions will of course still be allowed).

Vermont has just joined the Rationality Crowd, but they didn’t go whole hog. As reported in a New Yorker piece, “Vermont says No to the anti-vaccine movement”, by Michael Specter, Vermont has eliminated philosophical exemptions (but also recently mandated trigger warnings for GMO foods):

Just a year after Vermont became the first state to require labels for products made with genetically modified organisms, Governor Peter Shumlin on Thursday signed an equally controversial but very different kind of legislation: the state has now become the first to remove philosophical exemptions from its vaccination law. The two issues are both emotional and highly contested. But Vermont’s decisions could hardly be less alike: the G.M.O. bill, which has enormous popular support, has been widely criticized by scientists—largely because no credible evidence exists suggesting that G.M.O.s are dangerous. The vaccine law, however, opposed by many people, is the strongest possible endorsement of the data that shows that vaccines are the world’s most effective public-health tool.

There was serious opposition to the bill by Vermont legislators, one of whom said this:

“There is something deep in the core of my being,’’ Representative Warren Kitzmiller, of Montpelier, said during the debate over the philosophical objection. “And it simply will not allow me to vote to remove a parent’s right to make this serious decision on what is in the best interest of their child.”

Parent’s “right”? What right is that? (I’m always dubious when talk of “rights” comes up, since bald assertion of a “right” is designed to quash debate.) Do you have a “right” to allow your child to become infected, and then go to school and infect others (vaccinations don’t always work), perhaps starting an epidemic? What “right” does a parent have to take away protection of not only their child’s well being, but that of other children? Do parents also have a “right” to refuse scientific medical care for their sick children because of their religious belief? (43 of our 50 states also confer some kind of civil and criminal immunity on parents who do that.)

The fact is that privileging unevidenced belief over medicine is not in the best interests of any child, and should be legislatively curtailed, whether that belief be based on religion or “philosophy”. (And really, what kind of “philosophy” mandates refusing immunizations for your child?)

Yet there’s another fly in the ointment. Vermont has eliminated philosophical exemptions, but not religious ones. That’s a general trend, for although 48 states allow religious exemptions from immunization, only 19 allow the same for philosophy.) In fact, here’s what Vermont governor Peter Shumlin said about the bill that he signed:

“Vaccines work and parents should get their kids vaccinated. I know there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I wish the legislation passed three years ago had worked to sufficiently increase vaccination rates. However we’re not where we need to be to protect our kids from dangerous diseases, and I hope this legislation will have the effect of increasing vaccination rates.”

But the same argument—vaccines work and protect children and society at large—holds for for religion. Although the majority of Vermont exemptions were based on philosophy (Vermont is the least religious state in America), there is no substantive difference, at least relevant to exemptions from shots, between religion and philosophy. Both are deeply held personal beliefs, and both mandate a code of conduct. The only difference is that in America religion includes, along with a philosophy, belief in a god, and often is based more strongly on faith and dogma than on reason. But why should that make one set of beliefs more worthy of respect than the other? After all, philosophy is based on reason far more than is religion, which most people hold simply because they were indoctrinated into faith by their parents.

The reason religious exemptions remain is that Americans have a strong—and unwarranted—respect for faith and belief in gods—a respect that, for reasons I don’t understand, exceeds that for other deeply held philosophical beliefs. It’s time to stop seeing faith as some kind of virtue, and recognize it for what it really is: beliefs that are not based on evidence, and for that reason deserve no “respect.”

Sadly, the New Yorker, which has always been infected with the Respect For Faith virus, doesn’t say a word about religious exemptions. Referring to Warren Kitzmiller’s statement that philosophical exemptions remove parents’ “rights,” Specter sees that as “reasonable” and refuses to proffer his own opinion:

That [philosophical objection to vaccination] is a reasonable position, and many people hold it. According to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey, only sixty-eight per cent of Americans believe that childhood vaccinations should be required. Among younger parents, the percentage who object is even higher. Data and science are obviously not the only issues that matter in this debate. But it’s hard to see how all rights can be equal: if parents want their children to remain unprotected from vaccinations, perhaps they should have that right. But should those children then be allowed near other students, in public places like playgrounds, or anywhere else where they could infect people with weakened immune systems? By removing the philosophical objection, at least one state has begun to say no.

In fact, data and science are dispositive in this debate, as the legislature of Vermont has recognized. I wonder if Specter thinks that parents should be allowed to refuse medical care (antibiotics, insulin, and so on) from children on religious grounds, as many religionists, like Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, do? After all, those children usually don’t pose a danger to anyone else. It’s telling that a magazine widely seen as the voice of liberalism is so afraid to criticize superstition, especially when it endangers children.

h/t: Heather Hastie