Vaccine Mandates And The Erosion Of Religious Freedom

🖨️ Print post

For many Americans, faith is not a political statement or an abstract idea. It is something deeply personal—woven into family life, moral decision-making and the way parents care for their children. Religious traditions carry mean­ing because they are shaped by history, belief and practice. When those traditions are diluted or treated as interchangeable symbols, it can feel like a quiet loss of something sacred.

That sense of loss became visible this past holiday season in Europe, when a public Nativ­ity display replaced traditional figures with face­less cloth forms, including an infant Jesus de­picted without eyes, nose or mouth. Officials in Brussels described the display as an effort to be “inclusive,”¹ yet many Christians experienced it differently—not as a gesture of welcome, but as a removal of the very humanity at the heart of the Christian story. When someone later vandalized and stole the baby Jesus figure, the incident took on an unsettling symbolic weight, reflecting how easily religious meaning can be diminished in public life.²

These moments are not merely cultural curiosities. They point to broader societal dis­comfort with religion as something real and practiced. Increasingly, faith is tolerated only when it remains private and detached from con­crete choices. When religious belief is pressured to conform to secular expectations or government norms, it loses its standing as a protected matter of conscience.

This pattern also plays out in public health policy, and ever more so in debates over vaccine mandates. Across the United States, there is a push to weaken or eliminate long-standing religious exemptions to vac­cination—once widely recognized as reasonable accommodations for sincerely held beliefs. This ominous trend asks parents—those who rely on faith to guide medical decisions for their children—to justify their beliefs, where once those beliefs were respected as a matter of principle.

The concern is not about rejecting science or public health, but about preserving a foundational American value: the freedom to live according to one’s convictions without coercion. Just as religious symbols deserve to be treated with dignity in public spaces, religious beliefs deserve meaningful legal protection. When governments strip away exemptions, what is lost is not merely a policy option, but the official recognition that conscience—especially parental conscience—still matters.

HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF VACCINE MANDATES

Questions pitting conscience against state authority are not new. From the earliest days of American public health law, lawmakers recognized that compelling medical interventions raised serious constitutional and ethical concerns. Vaccine mandates did not emerge in a vacuum, nor were they ever intended to operate without limits.

The first vaccine widely promoted for public use was the smallpox vaccine, introduced in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In 1809, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to enact a statute encouraging smallpox vaccination,³ and by the mid-nineteenth century it required proof of vaccination as a condition of school attendance. For decades, however, smallpox vaccination stood largely alone. From the early twentieth century through 1940, it re­mained the only vaccine commonly mandated under state public health laws.⁴

In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed mandates in Jacobson v. Massachusetts,⁵ upholding the authority of states to require smallpox vaccination under their police pow­ers. Importantly, however, the law at issue did not forcibly vaccinate individuals or impose criminal penalties. Individuals could refuse vac­cination by paying a modest civil fine. The Court also cautioned that public health laws must not be applied in an “arbitrary and oppressive man­ner” and explicitly acknowledged that compul­sory vaccination could be unconstitutional if it posed a serious risk to an individual’s health.

Today, this cautionary language is frequent­ly overlooked. Even as the Court affirmed state authority, it recognized clear limits on that pow­er—limits grounded in proportionality, medical judgment and individual circumstances. These principles informed the exemption frameworks that developed over time and reflected an un­derstanding that public health measures must coexist with constitutional protections.

HOW VACCINE MANDATES FUNCTION TODAY

Modern vaccination policy operates through a layered system of federal guidance and state enforcement. At the federal level, vaccines are not directly compulsory for the general population. Instead, federal health authorities issue recom­mendations that function as national standards.

These recommendations are translated into vaccination schedules primarily by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through its Advisory Committee on Immuni­zation Practices (ACIP)⁶ and are reinforced by influential private medical trade associations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)⁷ and the American Medical Association (AMA).⁸ Although formally described as non-binding guidance, these schedules carry sub­stantial practical force. They shape standards of medical care, determine insurance coverage and reimbursement, influence hospital protocols and serve as benchmarks for compliance throughout the healthcare system.

It is at the state level that the recommenda­tions become binding. States exercise their con­stitutional police powers to require vaccination as a condition of school and daycare attendance and employment in certain sectors, including healthcare and military service. Legislation or health department rulemaking transforms federal guidance into enforceable legal obliga­tions—often with limited legislative debate or public input.⁹

AN EXPANDED VACCINE SCHEDULE, MORE MANDATES

Over the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the scope of vaccine recommenda­tions and mandates expanded dramatically. By 1983, children were expected to receive twenty-three doses of seven vaccines in early childhood—including DPT (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis), MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) and polio—and these vaccines were widely required for school attendance.^10,11

As of 2025, federal immunization schedules for birth through age eighteen had expanded still further to include dozens of doses cover­ing more than a dozen diseases, with more than fifty doses administered before age six.¹² Most states now require over three dozen vaccine doses for daycare or school entry, and many colleges impose additional vaccination require­ments for enrollment. These schedules include combination vaccines, multiple injections at a single visit and vaccines administered within hours or days of birth.

Legal protections—for vaccine manufac­turers, not vaccine recipients—have expanded in tandem with mandates. In 1986, industry concerns about lawsuits led Congress to enact the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).¹³ The Act explicitly acknowledged that vaccines can cause serious injury or death and replaced traditional civil litigation with an administrative compensation system, the Na­tional Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).¹⁴ Since its inception, VICP has paid more than five billion dollars in compensation, despite only granting awards to a minority of claims.¹⁵ Subsequent legislative amendments, administrative actions and judicial rulings— including a pivotal 2011 Supreme Court deci­sion—have further broadened manufacturer im­munity. As a result, individuals alleging vaccine injury are largely barred from presenting their claims to a jury, even when evidence suggests a safer alternative may have been possible.¹⁶

The expanded schedules generally have met with compliance. Thus, as of the 2013–2014 school year, more than 99 percent of children entering kindergarten had received at least one vaccine; even if parents obtained a nonmedical (religious or conscientious/personal belief) ex­emption for some shots, relatively few children were fully unvaccinated.¹⁷ Since then, however, exemption rates have been quietly but steadily increasing,¹⁸ and the minority of families seek­ing alternatives continues to grow. Families in forty-five states and the District of Columbia can seek religious exemptions for school vaccines, and sixteen states permit broader philosophical or conscientious belief exemptions.⁹

An analysis of county-level vaccine ex­emption data across forty-five U.S. states and the District of Columbia, published in JAMA in early 2026, reported that the median rate of nonmedical exemptions to any vaccine rose from 0.6 percent in 2010–2011 to 3.1 percent in 2023–2024, particularly among children enter­ing kindergarten—and with a notable spike in certain states from 2021 on.19 By the 2024–2025 school year, state-level data were indicating that nonmedical exemptions had reached 3.6 percent, with seventeen states reporting an exemption rate in excess of 5 percent.²⁰

Displeased with this trend, some states have worked to significantly narrow available exemp­tions. For example, though medical exemptions remain legally available in all fifty states, states have tightened approval standards and imposed more onerous documentation requirements. Physicians also face heightened scrutiny—and sometimes professional retaliation—for issuing them. Some have lost their licenses after provid­ing exemptions they believed were medically justified.²¹ As for religious exemptions, five states—California, New York, Maine, Con­necticut and West Virginia—have eliminated them entirely (see “Legal Challenges and Policy Developments” below for discussion of recent developments in New York and West Virginia).⁹ Even where exemptions remain in effect on pa­per, more restrictive administrative procedures often make them effectively inaccessible.

COVID-19 AND THE COLLAPSE OF EXEMPTIONS

The long-standing vaccine policy mecha­nisms just described—federal recommenda­tions, state enforcement, narrowed exemptions and limited legal recourse—helped set the stage for the unprecedented escalation of vaccine mandates witnessed after public health officials declared a “pandemic” in 2020. In addition, a powerful legal scaffolding governing public health emergencies, carefully constructed over decades, ensured the “non-regulation” of the medical countermeasures falsely presented as “vaccines” but actually functioning as inject­able bioweapons overseen by the U.S. military.²²

By the end of 2021, many governments across the globe had implemented sweeping man­dates that linked vaccination to access and partic­ipation in public life. For example, China, Israel, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and numerous European nations, along with some U.S. states and municipalities, required proof of Covid-19 “vaccination” to work, attend school, travel or enter public venues.²³ These requirements dis­placed long-standing norms of informed consent, conscience and religious freedom.

In this environment, exemption frameworks proved remarkably fragile. Public and private institutions frequently delayed, dismissed or denied religious and medical accommodations outright. New York City rejected teachers’ reli­gious exemption requests en masse, resulting in unpaid leave or termination. Federal employees, healthcare workers and other essential person­nel faced similar consequences. Several states imposed mandates with no religious opt-outs at all, using emergency powers to circumvent con­stitutional safeguards and the heightened scru­tiny that ordinarily would have been required.

LEGAL CHALLENGES AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

As legislative and administrative avenues for religious accommodation have narrowed, many families and institutions have turned to the courts. However, the judicial response has been uneven and often reactive, reflecting both the fra­gility of existing protections and the lack of clear, consistent standards for evaluating sincerely held religious objections. While some courts recog­nize the constitutional issues involved, others are quite willing to defer to emergency powers or agency discretion, leaving religious freedom dependent on litigation rather than principle.

Nonetheless, legal challenges related to reli­gious exemptions continue to unfold in various states. In Miller v. McDonald in New York, three Amish schools challenged the state’s repeal of religious exemptions, arguing violations of the First Amendment. In December 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded a lower court ruling, keeping the case alive.²⁴ Support­ing the appeal, twenty-two state Attorneys General filed amicus briefs urging the Court to uphold religious exemptions and warning against undermining the free exercise of these protections.²⁵ Children’s Health Defense (CHD) has also sued New York State over its elimina­tion of religious exemptions.²⁶

In West Virginia, school vaccine law his­torically has allowed only medical exemptions.²⁷ In January 2025, Governor Patrick Morrisey, citing state religious freedom statutes, issued an executive order directing recognition of re­ligious exemptions, triggering resistance from education officials as well as litigation.²⁸ In July, a circuit court sided with the governor, issuing a preliminary injunction requiring schools to hon­or religious exemptions statewide,²⁹ followed by a permanent injunction in November.³⁰ That ruling was stayed (halted) the following month by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, effectively allowing resumed enforcement of the medical-exemption-only policy while the litiga­tion continues.³¹ During this period, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned that failure to honor religious exemptions in West Virginia could jeopardize approximately $1.37 billion in federal funding for the state, including funds tied to the Vaccines for Children Program.³²

In February 2026, thirteen members of Congress chimed in on religious liberty and vaccination, submitting a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon urging the Depart­ment of Justice (DOJ) to investigate the other four states (New York, California, Maine and Connecticut) that do not allow religious exemp­tions.³³ Expressing “serious concerns regarding ongoing infringements upon these civil liber­ties,” the legislators asserted, “Vaccine mandate laws that fail to accommodate religious beliefs represent a clear, coercive intrusion on this freedom, compelling individuals and families to act in direct contradiction with their faith.”³⁴

Threatened by the rising pushback, an ag­gressive AAP issued a policy statement in July 2025 advocating for “the elimination of [all] nonmedical exemptions.”³⁵ That same month, AAP also filed a lawsuit against HHS officials over changes to the agency’s recommendations regarding Covid shots.³⁶ Ironically, the AAP itself is now at the center of a federal racketeer­ing (RICO) lawsuit filed by CHD, which alleges that the front group operates as a coordinated scheme to mislead the public about vaccine safety and protect pharmaceutical interests without disclosing its financial ties to major drug makers and its systematic suppression of contrary scientific concerns.³⁷

Victories in the courts underscore the po­tential power of legal protections. In St. Louis, public school employees who had been denied religious exemptions to Covid mandates sued their district, winning a jury award of more than $4 million for thirteen employees placed on unpaid leave or effectively terminated, with additional settlements for others. A federal judge ruled that the policy had unlawfully forced the employees to choose between their faith and livelihood, violating the First Amendment^.38,39

Similarly, the University of Colorado’s An­schutz School of Medicine settled for more than $10.3 million with students and faculty denied religious exemptions. A federal appeals court found the university’s policy unconstitutional because it treated secular exemptions more favorably than religious ones and evaluated re­ligious objections in a discriminatory manner.⁴⁰

OBTAINING RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS

A religious exemption is not a mere form— it is a formal declaration that deeply held beliefs deserve legal recognition. Securing a religious exemption thus requires articulating sincerely held beliefs; clarity and sincerity matter most. Families should describe how faith informs their decision and emphasize the consistency of their beliefs, but should not cite scientific or safety arguments, bodily autonomy or generalized moral objections, which are outside the legal scope of a religious exemption.

One common basis for requesting a reli­gious exemption involves the fact that some vaccines are developed or tested using aborted fetal cell lines. “[E]very dose of MMR and Chickenpox vaccine contains billions of pieces of human DNA and cellular parts from the cell line of an aborted fetus,” attorney Aaron Siri recently reminded the public,⁴¹ a fact confirmed under oath in 2018 by the so-called “Godfather of Vaccines,” Dr. Stanley Plotkin.⁴² Many people of faith had similar concerns about some of the Covid shots.⁴³ Nonetheless, some religious authorities chose to accommodate government vaccine mandates, and the Vatican went so far as to characterize compliance with Covid vac­cination requirements as “morally acceptable.”⁴⁴

Organizations such as the Health Freedom Defense Fund provide model religious exemp­tion letters that can help parents articulate their convictions in a way that aligns with adminis­trative expectations.⁴⁵ However, parents should be aware that even carefully prepared requests can face resistance; navigating these challenges requires vigilance, documentation and timely action. Families must also be careful never to agree to sign documents that frame their refusal to vaccinate as “negligence.”⁴⁶

THE REAL SOLUTION: ELIMINATE MANDATES, NOT EXEMPTIONS

For families of faith, the erosion of religious and personal belief exemptions often reshapes daily life. Parents may face stark choices be­tween education, employment and conscience. Some turn to homeschooling, alternative school­ing or relocation; others encounter barriers to medical care or community participation. Children witness government disregard for their family’s beliefs. Far from hypothetical dilem­mas, these are lived realities for families navi­gating a system in which exemptions and other religious rights⁴⁷—once understood as essential safeguards—can no longer be assumed secure.

There are presently some signs of recourse. In September 2025, for example, HHS’s Office for Civil Rights issued guidance clarifying that vaccine providers participating in the federally funded Vaccines for Children Program must honor state-recognized religious and conscience exemptions.⁴⁸ Secretary Kennedy announced, “States have the authority to balance public health goals with individual freedom, and honoring those decisions builds trust. Protecting both public health and personal liberty is how we restore faith in our institutions.”

As the erosion of religious exemptions high­lights, the problem lies not with exemptions but with the mandates that make them necessary. Although the HHS guidance offers some relief, it also underscores a hard truth: exemptions ex­ist only because mandates exist—and as long as bodily autonomy is conditional, liberties remain vulnerable. Government authority to dictate what enters an adult’s or a child’s body crosses the most basic boundaries of personal liberty and parental responsibility. Exemptions serve as temporary protections in a system built on compulsion rather than choice,⁴⁹ requiring families to navigate bureaucracies, defend deeply held beliefs, and bear legal, emotional and financial burdens to preserve a basic human right. Even the strongest exemption exists at the discretion of institutions.

We should remember that mandates have expanded largely through administrative rule­making rather than legislative debate, distancing public health decision-making from democratic accountability. The current system—in which vaccines are federally recommended and state-enforced while manufacturers are shielded from liability—has shifted all of the risk and most of the financial responsibility for adverse outcomes to individuals and families. This did not happen by accident but reflects deliberate policy choices that prioritize institutional power and protection while leaving families to absorb uncertainty and harm.

The logical and moral solution is clear: remove mandates altogether. In 2025, the state of Florida signaled its willingness to take this approach and move to end all school vaccine mandates.⁵⁰ Without coercion, exemp­tions are unnecessary, and families can make health decisions grounded in conscience, faith and personal judgment—without fear of punishment or exclusion. This principle is rooted in long-standing medical ethics and legal standards. A central precept of informed consent is that individuals must receive complete and accurate information about risks and benefits and decide freely whether to accept medical interventions.⁵¹ Consent obtained through pressure, penalties or exclusion is not true consent.49 Equally important is the precautionary principle of “first, do no harm,” which prioritizes preventing harm over enforcing compliance, recogniz­ing that individual responses to medical interventions vary. These ethical safeguards, codified in the Nuremberg Code, establish that voluntary consent is “absolutely essential” in any human medical intervention.^52,53

As emphasized by Leslie Manookian, president of the Health Free­dom Defense Fund,⁵⁴ bodily autonomy is a human right not subordinate to state power, expediency or majority rule. The right to control one’s own body—and that of one’s child—is fundamental. Mandates reduce parents to instruments of public policy rather than responsible decision-makers, replacing consent with coercion. Removing vaccine mandates allows families to reclaim authority, ensures genuine religious freedom and restores health decisions to those most directly affected. Liberty becomes the starting point, not a concession.

---

SIDEBAR

THE QUESTION OF RISK

Vaccines differ from most medical interventions in one critical respect: they are administered primarily to healthy individuals as a preventive measure rather than to treat illness. As with all pharmaceutical products, vaccines carry inher­ent risks, including the risk of serious injury and death. These risks are not speculative; they are explicitly acknowledged in federal statutes, regulatory frameworks and compensation programs.

The skyrocketing rates of chronic childhood illness and neurodevelopmental conditions—which have occurred alongside the expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule—powerfully illustrate the issue of risk. The most recent CDC estimates suggest that at least one in thirty-one U.S. eight-year-olds has an autism spectrum disorder.⁵⁵ Rates of asthma, obesity, type 1 diabetes, autoimmune disorders and other chronic illnesses in childhood and adolescence have also increased substantially. The 2018–2019 National Survey of Children’s Health reported that more than 40 percent of school-aged children and adolescents had at least one chronic health condition,⁵⁶ making chronic disease a leading driver of disability and healthcare spending.

Secretary Kennedy told a Senate committee in September 2025 that the U.S. is “the sickest country in the world,”⁵⁷ citing CDC data published earlier last year. In that study, 76.4 percent of American adults (as of 2023) reported at least one chronic illness, ranging from 59.5 percent of young adults (ages eighteen to thirty-four) to 78.4 percent of midlife adults (ages thirty-five to sixty-four) to 93 percent of adults sixty-five or older.⁵⁸ Public health agencies attribute these trends to factors such as poor nutrition, environmental exposures and sedentary lifestyles, but while those influences are significant, they cannot fully explain either the timing or the scale of the increases in chronic illness. A belated and long-overdue concession came in late 2025 when the CDC acknowledged what parents have asserted for decades—that a link between vaccination and autism cannot be ruled out.⁵⁹

---

REFERENCES

1. Reiter TP. Faceless Nativity scene on Brussels’ Grand Place sparks international controversy. EWTM News, Dec. 2, 2025.
2. Plazy S. A controversial infant Jesus is stolen from a Belgian Nativity Scene. AP News, Dec. 1, 2025.
3. Nelson K. Smallpox myths and the birth of the vaccine awareness movement. Wise Traditions. Summer 2023;24(2):75-85.
4. Cole JP, Swendiman KS. Mandatory Vaccinations: Precedent and Current Laws. Congres­sional Research Service, May 21, 2014, RS21414. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS21414.pdf
5. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
6. Who sets the immunization schedule? CDC, Aug. 9, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines-children/schedules/who-sets.html
7. Vaccination recommendations by the AAP. American Academy of Pediatrics, last updated Jul. 29, 2025. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/immunizations/vaccination-recommendations-by-the-aap/
8. Fryhofer SA. AMA statement on changes to childhood vaccine schedule. American Medical Association, Jan. 5, 2026. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-statement-changes-childhood-vaccine-schedule
9. State Vaccine Laws & Exemptions. National Vaccine Information Center, n.d. https://www.nvic.org/law-policy-state
10. Table 1. Recommended schedule for active immunization of normal infants and children. CDC, 1983. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/images/schedule1983s.jpg
11. Hoeg TB, Kulldorff M. Assessment of the U.S. Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule Compared to Other Countries. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Jan. 2, 2026.
12. Birth through age 18 immunization schedule, 2025. https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/patient-care/prevention-wellness/immunizations-vaccines/immunization-schedules/birth-through-age-18-immunization-schedule.html
13. H.R.5546 – National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. 99th Congress (1985-1986). https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
14. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division. https://www.justice.gov/civil/vicp
15. Data & statistics. Health Resources & Services Administration, updated Jul. 1, 2023. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vicp/vicp-stats.pdf
16. NVIC position statement. National Vaccine Information Center, n.d. https://www.nvic.org/law-policy-federal/vaccine-injury-compensation/nvic-position-statement
17. Seither R, Masalovich S, Knighton CL, et al. Vaccination coverage among children in kin­dergarten – United States, 2013–14 school year. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Oct 17;63(41):913-920.
18. Nonmedical childhood vaccination exemptions are climbing. Global Center for Health Security, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Jan. 14, 2026.
19. Fattah M, Stoffel LA, Bubar KM, et al. Trends in county-level childhood vaccination exemp­tions in the US. JAMA. 2026 Jan 14:e2524407.
20. Vaccination coverage and exemptions among kindergartners. CDC, Jul. 31, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/schoolvaxview/data/index.html
21. Medical Board of California. SB 806 brings changes for applicants and licensees. Medical Board of California News. 2021;159(4):29.
22. Watt K, Latypova S, Hazel L. PREP Act, public health emergency, and EUA countermeasure law. Bailiwick News Archives, 2025. https://bailiwicknewsarchives.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/prep-act-public-health-emergency-eua-law-october-2025-2.pdf
23. Rouw A, Kates J, Michaud J. Key questions about COVID-19 vaccine passports and the U.S. KFF, Apr. 15, 2021.
24. SCOTUS revives religious challenge against NY vaccine law. Liberty Counsel, Dec. 10, 2025.
25. Miller v. McDonald. Docket No. 25-133. Supreme Court of the United States, accessed Jan. 26, 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/25-133.html
26. Children’s Health Defense v. State of New York. Case 2:25-cv-06877, filed Dec. 15, 2025. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-12-15-Complaint.pdf
27. West Virginia Code §16-3-4. https://code.wvlegislature.gov/16-3-4/
28. Governor Patrick Morrisey provides guidance on religious exemptions from school vaccine mandates. West Virginia Office of the Governor, May 9, 2026.
29. WV Board of Education statement on Raleigh County Circuit Court decision. West Virginia Department of Education, Jul. 24, 2025.
30. Governor Morrisey applauds major legal win in vaccine exemption case. West Virginia Office of the Governor, Nov. 26, 2025.
31. Adams SA. West Virginia Supreme Court stays ruling allowing for religious vaccine exemp­tions. News and Sentinel, Dec. 3, 2025.
32. Nevradakis M. “Seismic shift”: HHS warns West Virginia may lose $1.37 billion in funding if health departments don’t allow religious exemptions. The Defender, Aug. 25, 2025.
33. Baletti B. Breaking: Congress members urge DOJ to investigate 4 states that prohibit religious exemptions. The Defender, Feb. 5, 2026.
34. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Letter-to-Department-of-Justice- Religious-Exemptions.pdf
35. Hackell JM, Brothers K, Bode S, et al. Medical vs non­medical immunization exemptions for child care and school attendance: policy statement. Pediatrics. 2025 Aug 1;156(2):e2025072714.
36. American Academy of Pediatrics v. HHS [Complaint]. Case 1:25-cv-11916, filed Jul. 7, 2025. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/FiledSuit.pdf
37. Ji S. Prescription for corruption: how the AAP’s vaccine empire faces a legal reckoning. GreenMedInfo, Jan 26, 2026.
38. Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis [Judg­ment]. Case 4:22-cv-00635-SRC, filed Jun. 27, 2025. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/348-JUDGMENT.pdf
39. Nevradakis M. Jury awards $4 million to St. Louis school employees denied religious exemptions from COVID vac­cine. The Defender, Jul. 11, 2025.
40. Thomas More Society secures historic $10 million settle­ment against the University of Colorado Medical School for religious discrimination. Thomas More Society, Dec. 1, 2025.
41. Siri A [@AaronSiriSG]. “Progress. And a reminder, every dose of MMR and Chickenpox vaccine….” X, 8 Jan. 2023. https://x.com/AaronSiriSG/status/2014427021347332242
42. https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/aborted-fetal-tissue-in-vaccines/
43. Nelson K. Use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccines. Wise Traditions. Fall 2020;21(3):73-81.
44. “Note of the Vatican Covid-19 Commission in collabora­tion with the Pontifical Academy for Life. ‘Vaccine for all. 20 points for a fairer and healthier world.’” Holy See Press Office, Dec. 29, 2020.
45. Health freedom resources & action kit: vaccine exemption resources. Health Freedom Defense Fund, n.d. https://healthfreedomdefense.org/resources/
46. Reform Pharma Team. Vaccine religious exemptions: what to know as your child heads back to school. Children’s Health Defense, Aug. 9, 2024. https://childrenshealth­defense.org/community/vaccine-religious-exemptions-pediatric-vaccination-schedule-parental-rights/
47. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/205/
48. HHS reinforces religious and conscience exemptions from childhood vaccine mandates. HHS Press Office, Sept. 4, 2025.
49. Fisher BL. Reforming Vaccine Policy & Law: A Guide. National Vaccine Information Center, 2022. https://www.nvic.org/NVIC/media/LegacySite/pdf/NVIC-Referenced-Vaccine-Law-Reform-Guide.pdf
50. Oliphant J, Steenhuysen J. Florida plans to end all state vaccine mandates, including for schools. Reuters. Sept. 4, 2025.
51. “Informed Consent.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, updated Feb. 20, 2025. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ informed-consent/
52. Capron AM. Where did informed consent for research come from? J Law Med Ethics. 2018 Mar;46(1):12-29.
53. Moreno JD, Schmidt U, Joffe S. The Nuremberg Code 70 years later. JAMA. 2017 Sep 5;318(9):795-796.
54. https://healthfreedomdefense.org/about/
55. Data and statistics on autism spectrum disorder. CDC, May 27, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/index.html
56. Managing chronic health conditions. CDC, Jul. 9, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/school-health-conditions/chronic-conditions/index.html
57. RFK Jr. Senate Finance Committee Hearing [transcript]. Rev.com, Sept. 4, 2025. https://www.rev.com/transcripts/rfk-jr-senate-finance-committee-hearing
58. Watson KB, Wiltz JL, Nhim K, et al. Trends in multiple chronic conditions among US adults, by life stage, Behav­ioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2013-2023. Prev Chronic Dis. 2025 Apr 17;22:E15.
59. Autism and vaccines. CDC, Nov. 19, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

🖨️ Print post