Iowa’s governor has announced a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the federal government’s vaccine requirement for large employers. She says the order "pits Americans against Americans while forcing them to choose between making a living or standing up for their personal beliefs."
That's not quite true, however. The federal order, which applies to those with 100 or more employees, says employees who refuse to get vaccinated can opt to get tested weekly instead. Such mandates are permitted by the law. But Gov. Kim Reynolds' communications director, Alex Murphy, didn't respond to questions pointing out those facts.
That’s not the only way in which Iowa’s approach to vaccines is disingenuous. Earlier, the governor signed a state law making it easier for people to refuse to get the vaccine, even if their workplaces require it, by claiming religious exemptions. Here’s the catch: They don’t need to specify what the religious constraints are. They just need to provide "a statement" that receiving the vaccine would conflict (with) tenets and practices of their religion.
The same new law lets people claim they have medical conditions that would make getting COVID vaccines dangerous to them or someone else in their household, without saying what those are. The law acknowledges that people may be fired for not accepting the vaccine, in which case they are now eligible for unemployment at their employer's and taxpayers' expense. Workers fired for refusing to comply with company vaccine policies don't generally qualify for unemployment, The Wall Street Journal reported.
As one who generally supports religious pluralism and workplace accommodations, and doesn't support employers prying into people's private lives or morals, I think this law opens up a hornet's nest. When life or death hangs in the balance for some in proximity, these mandates — with allowance for legitimate exceptions — are an appropriate attempt at protecting public safety.
The truth is, some of those protesting vaccines or masks are doing so out of an antipathy to government telling them what to do. Some even continue to doubt basic facts about COVID-19. And some people just don't care about the well-being of others who are medically compromised and could die after being exposed to it.
Employers obviously have a careful balancing act to do here and can't be too heavy handed. How do they know if employees' resistance is based on bona fide religious prohibitions or medical conditions? What if those are just excuses when the real motivation is some political agenda? Is it fair for other employees to be exposed to possible infection with a potentially life-threatening pandemic by people who refuse to take precautions? And should the state — i.e., taxpayers — be required to pay for that refusal?
Some large employers, including Walt Disney Co., Amtrak and Tyson Foods, are requiring workers who seek religious exemptions to the vaccine to answer some questions. Employees at Amtrak are asked how long they've subscribed to those beliefs and if they have tattoos or body piercings or eat foods with preservatives or chemicals.
One religious reason some abortion opponents cite for rejecting the vaccine is the belief that the COVID vaccine used fetal stem cells in its research and development, General Electric asks about that and if an employee's religious beliefs also prevent them from wearing seat belts or taking Tylenol and Motrin, among other medications that some say also used fetal stem lines. A spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson, which makes Tylenol and Motrin, told The Wall Street Journal fetal cells were not used.
According to the Institute for Vaccine Safety of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "two cell lines currently used in vaccines are derived from selective abortions performed overseas in the 1960s; WI-38 from Germany in 1961 and MRC-5 from UK in 1966."
In the same Journal article, Tyson said 96% of its active U.S. employees are vaccinated. “We don’t want to lose any of our team members and are providing religious or medical accommodation based on careful consideration of the individual facts and our commitment to the safety of our employees,” a spokesman said. But Kaiser Permanente has said it is denying some requests for religious exemptions that it believes were insincere. “We believe that misusing the religious exemption to avoid vaccination is disrespectful to those with sincere religious beliefs, and could violate the ethical standards we expect our employees to meet,” its chief medical officer said.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a lawsuit by health care workers seeking a religious exemption in Maine. In fact a number of lawsuits have been filed against government COVID vaccine mandates by nurses, firefighters and students among others, but almost all have failed.
Some religious leaders have also endorsed use of anti-COVID vaccines, including Pope Francis.
The Christian Science Church told members in a statement, “For more than a century, our denomination has counseled respect for public health authorities and conscientious obedience to the laws of the land, including those requiring vaccination," but added, "Church members are free to make their own choices on all life-decisions, in obedience to the law, including whether or not to vaccinate."
For an evangelical Christian perspective, I checked in with an old friend, Pastor John Palmer. Now retired, he used to preside over the First Assembly of God Church in Des Moines. He has gotten the COVID vaccine but noted the opposition among some Christians linked to fetal stem cell use.
Palmer doesn't wear a mask, but not for religious reasons.
He cited several biblical passages that caution against condemning people for their personal choices. But when asked whether people should feel a larger sense of responsibility to protect the community, he said they should, noting there's no way to know at a particular gathering who is or isn't vaccinated.
"Every person needs to act responsibly," he said. "I would encourage them to do whatever you can to protect yourself and others by wearing a mask."
The bottom line, in my view, is that employers should be able to require the vaccine for employees except for those who have compelling reasons not to get it. That's what the federal government requires. Reynolds' law doesn't require anyone to elaborate on a reason, so it feels more like political showmanship (showwomanship?) than concern for public safety.
