Lake Elsinore, Temecula Moms Fighting For Vaccination Exemptions For Their Kids

MURRIETA, CA — Attorneys representing four mothers — two of whom are from the Inland Empire — federally challenging California's denial of religious-based exemptions to vaccination requirements for kids' admission to public schools filed briefs with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the stage for oral arguments, it was announced Monday.

"Our First Amendment liberties must be protected with vigilance," Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith & Freedom President Robert Tyler said about the case. "We are honored to take this fight to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of our courageous clients."

In March, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff in San Diego dismissed the plaintiffs' civil rights lawsuit seeking an injunction against the state's enforcement of Senate Bill 277 because of its failure to include a "personal belief exemption" to the vaccination schedule — an exemption that existed from 1961 to 2016.

The plaintiffs immediately announced their intention to appeal. With the filing of opening briefs on Friday, the appellants and state attorneys are now awaiting a court date to argue the case before the federal panel.

"Advocates for Faith & Freedom highlights what is an important point of fairness but also an important principle of constitutional law: before the state is allowed to ban school children from all public and private schools in California, it must demonstrate that doing so is necessary," attorney Erin Mersino said. " It is hard to prove necessity to single out religious exemptions for extinction, however, when the state allows so many secular exemptions."

SB 277 only allows medically valid exemptions, such as pre-existing disorders that could pose risks if a person receives one of the immunizations for Hepatitis B, polio, diptheria-tetanus-pertussis, varicella, or measles, mumps and rubella.

The plaintiffs said not only are the shots required when children are enrolled for the first time in K-12 programs, but boosters are mandated later — possibly totaling 17 shots by the end of a youth's K-12 attendance.

Huff found no grounds for invalidating any part of SB 277, instead recognizing California Department of Justice attorneys' arguments that no portion of the law "unfairly impacts individuals with religious beliefs."

"The plaintiffs' claims are unsupported as a matter of federal constitutional law, which for decades has consistently held that a state's exercise of its police powers in protecting the public from communicable diseases is rationally based," according to the original brief filed by state prosecutors.

"States have a legitimate, if not compelling, interest in requiring children to be vaccinated before entering school."

The plaintiffs — Kristi Caraway of Lake Elsinore, Tiffany Brown of Hollister, Sarah Clark of Temecula and Sara Royce of Pala — are seeking reapplication of the personal belief exemption because of concerns over the contents of the vaccinations and their potential negative impacts.

The youngest of Caraway's three children "developed injuries following vaccination, specifically the HepB and MMR vaccines," the plaintiffs stated.

"The child was non-verbal until age 6, diagnosed with autism," the suit said. "Following the boy's injuries, Caraway and her husband began to research vaccines and discovered that many contain aborted fetal cells. The Caraways made the decision to stop vaccinating their children."

The plaintiffs relied on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention's published "excipient" lists associated with some drugs, as well as the U.S. Food & Drug Administration's online information sheets, the Journal for Clinical Microbiology, the National Academy of Sciences and other entities to bolster their position.

The civil complaint noted the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines, which "have their origins in ... lung tissue of aborted fetuses," have been previously identified in chickenpox and MMR vaccines.

"Many individuals religiously object to vaccinations based on the use of aborted fetal tissue in certain vaccinations," the complaint said.

The plaintiffs further objected to "aluminum adjuvants," thimersal, mercury, polyethylene glycol and formaldehyde concentrated in various shots, raising the prospect of harmful side-effects.

State attorneys argued the inoculations help spread "herd immunity" among children gathered together in crowded spaces, exposed to re-occurring viral contacts.

"The diseases for which California requires school vaccinations are very serious conditions that pose very real health risks to children," the defendants wrote, citing SB 277.

Prosecutors further cited a 1944 Supreme Court decision, Prince v. Massachusetts, which asserted "the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease."

They said the plaintiffs' argument claiming First Amendment protection against violation of religious beliefs related to vaccination requirements traditionally hasn't withstood court scrutiny because "state immunization laws serve a rational ... interest in protecting the public."

The plaintiffs countered that personal belief exemptions historically accounted for less than 2.5% of students entering California's public school system, raising doubts as to whether herd immunity could be seriously undermined. They also argued the state already grants long delays that allow some students to go unvaccinated for up to a year, particularly when they're "foster youth, homeless, migrants and (children from) military families."

"They are still free to gather in congregate settings," the plaintiffs wrote.