A number of federal initiatives are putting pressure on states to permit parents to refuse school vaccinations for personal or religious reasons, potentially threatening California’s prohibition of such exemptions.

California stands out as one of only five states that completely bans non-medical exemptions, a move that stemmed from the 2015 landmark bill following the Disneyland measles outbreak. The states of Connecticut, New York, Maine, and West Virginia have enacted similar legislation.

This law is said to have increased the measles vaccination rate among kindergarteners in California for the 2024-25 school year to 92.6%, a notable rise from 92.3% in 2014-2015, despite national rates falling. Only ten states reported vaccination rates that meet or exceed the 95% benchmark considered crucial for herd immunity.

Dr. Eric Ball, a pediatrician in Orange County and head of the American Academy of Pediatrics California, voiced his support for vaccine efforts.

The main actions aimed at creating exemptions include:

• A bill introduced in Congress that would withdraw federal education funding from states without religious exemptions.
• A letter from the Department of Health and Human Services suggesting that federal vaccine funds may be withheld from states lacking any sort of religious or personal conscience exemption.
• Multiple court cases initiated by parents, including from California, seeking the right to religious exemptions, which may eventually escalate to the Supreme Court.

Legal analysts believe these actions illustrate a coordinated attempt to challenge restrictive states like California, particularly concerning parental rights to enroll unvaccinated children in schools.

“It’s reasonable to deduce that elements of the administration, including three Supreme Court justices, are actively pursuing changes to reverse California’s strict stance on non-medical exemptions,” said an anonymous expert.

In West Virginia, a similar strategy has already succeeded. Although the legislature rejected a bill that would have allowed religious exemptions, Republican Governor Patrick Morrissey issued an executive order permitting them, with supportive backing from the HHS.

“Vaccinations are among the most significant public health achievements. They prevent serious illnesses, decrease hospitalization rates, and save lives,” stated the California Department of Public Health. The department is dedicated to ensuring that Californians continue to receive safe and effective vaccinations based on credible scientific evidence.

These federal actions coincide with a rise in anti-vaccine sentiment during the Trump administration, notably influenced by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been vocal against vaccines, including those for measles. As secretary, he pledged to limit mRNA studies and specified that the vaccine should only be administered to older individuals or those with pre-existing conditions.

Historical Context of California’s Vaccine Policies

California was among the first states to allow vaccine exemptions based on personal beliefs in 1961, initially relating to polio vaccination for school attendance. For many years, only a small fraction of parents opted for this exemption, which lingered around 0.5%. However, state senator Richard Pan, who crafted the 2015 law, indicated that exemption rates began rising in the mid-2000s, triggered partly by actress Jenny McCarthy’s claims about vaccines causing autism. “Facebook and Twitter fueled this tremendously, creating an echo chamber,” Pan noted.

By the 2013-14 school year, the percentage of kindergarteners in California utilizing non-medical exemptions rose to 3.1%, which resulted in a drop in measles vaccination rates to 92.3%—well short of the 95% needed for herd immunity.

A significant measles outbreak emerged in 2014 after a single case at Disneyland infected over 140 people nationwide, leading to the introduction of SB277, which abolished non-medical exemptions. Many parents, especially those whose children couldn’t be vaccinated for health reasons, supported this bill. “The goal of SB277 was to protect families and their right to education,” Pan emphasized. No major religious groups opposed the bill, he added.

Concerns of Religious Beliefs Among Parents

Some parents assert that their genuine religious beliefs prevent them from vaccinating their children. In 2023, Amy and Steve Dorcher, along with others, filed a federal lawsuit claiming SB277 infringed their religious rights, thus preventing their daughter from attending public school. They argued, “We defined vaccination as contrary to our religious convictions through biblical consultations.” Their daughter, enrolled in an independent learning program, misses out on typical social interactions, leading to feelings of stigma.

The lawsuit claimed the parents had to invest significant resources into alternative activities to compensate for their daughter’s social shortcomings due to SB277. Although the case was dismissed in June, an appeal is pending. Similar legal battles are unfolding in New York involving Amish families, which may prompt Supreme Court review.

Christina Hildebrand, the founder of A Voice for Choice, a group backing the California lawsuit, believes this is a pivotal moment for change. “If vaccines are effective and pose no risk, people would be more inclined to get them,” she argued, questioning the quality of vaccines if mandates are deemed necessary.

UCLA Law’s Wiley voiced support for those with sincere religious objections, suggesting that even a small number of opt-outs could still allow herd immunity to be reached. However, the challenge remains in effectively monitoring the validity of these claims, as it could significantly lower vaccination rates, she warned.

Dorit Rice, a professor at UC San Francisco focusing on vaccine studies, noted that religious exemptions are often misused by individuals with safety concerns. Through her research, she highlighted an active online industry supporting those seeking to navigate the creation of religious exemptions.

Shifting Landscape of Vaccine Policies

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, many states have reported a decline in fully vaccinated kindergarteners and an uptick in exemption requests. Recent findings from KFF, a health research nonprofit, underline this trend.

Last week, Florida’s surgeon general declared that vaccination would not be a requirement for public school children. Meanwhile, a federal proposal in Washington could withhold educational funds from states not allowing parents to opt-out of vaccines for religious reasons. If this legislation, introduced by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL), becomes law, it would bar states like California from demanding documentation from parents verifying their religious beliefs regarding vaccinations.

“Freedom of speech and religion is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution,” Steube stated. “Families should not be compelled to shrink their beliefs or navigate loopholes to comply with vaccination norms.”

In a recent letter, Kennedy asserted that states with existing laws protecting religious or personal conscience rights must expand those laws to include vaccine opt-outs or risk losing federal funding for children’s vaccine initiatives—funds aimed at low-income families.

While California lacks specific laws on religious freedom or personal conscience, 29 other states have enacted such protections. Legal experts believe this federal directive could compel states to offer vaccine exemptions.

“States should balance public health priorities with individual liberties. Respecting these choices fosters trust,” Kennedy remarked, further emphasizing the dual importance of public health and personal freedoms in restoring faith in institutions.

Some legal analysts expressed concern over the federal government’s overreach. Richard Hughes, an attorney with two decades of experience in vaccine legislation, described the approach as “enormous federal overreach and incredibly inappropriate.”