|
School District Refuses Parent’s Religious Exemption
From Vaccinations After Son Used Sugar Toppings On His Ice Cream
December 5, 2001
Rochester, New York - Today in federal court JoAnn Curtis, on
behalf of her daughter Bryanna Curtis, filed suit against the
Hilton Central School District and the New York State Department
of Health claiming the District and the Department of Health
violated state and federal law by refusing to grant religious
exemptions to forced inoculations. The School District will not
allow Bryanna to attend class, nor go onto any school property
at any time a school-related event is taking place, until her
parents violate their religious beliefs and have Bryanna
vaccinated. For example, if her brother is involved in a school
play in the evening, Bryanna would not be able to attend. The
parents and students are represented by Attorneys Mathew D.
Staver, President and General Counsel, of Liberty Counsel and
Joel Oster, Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel.
New York state law requires school-aged children to be
subjected to a laundry list of various vaccinations, including
vaccinations that are solely derived from aborted fetal cell
lines. State law provides exemptions to the vaccinations for
medical reasons and to those who object based on religious
grounds. Bryanna Curtis wants to attend kindergarten at Quest
Elementary School. Bryanna’s parents are opposed to
immunizations for religious reasons. They believe that their
body is the temple of God and that they should not defile their
body with immunizations. In addition, several immunizations are
derived from aborted fetal cell-lines, and they believe that
injecting their bodies with such immunizations promotes abortion
and violates the Sixth Commandment of "Thou Shall Not
Kill." Bryanna’s mother filed a request with the School
District to be exempted from immunizations for religious
reasons. The Department of Health regulations state that a
school district can require "supporting documentation"
of a religious belief to determine whether an individual is
entitled to an exemption from vaccinations. Relying on this
regulation, the School District required Mrs. Curtis to attend
an "inquisition," where the School District’s
attorney was present, to respond to questions concerning her
religious beliefs. During the "inquisition," she had
to respond to questions about her devotional life, her theology,
the groceries she buys, her medical history, and even the type
of toppings that she puts on her ice cream. The School District
then denied her religious exemption and Bryanna was not allowed
to attend class. In the letter denying her the religious
exemption, the School District stated, [JoAnn’s] statement on
August 15 that her children know how to eat because they put
fruit on ice cream as opposed to other sugar toppings, [is]
contrary to actions recalled by staff members of her oldest son
using sugar toppings on ice cream as opposed to fruit, at his
birthday party at school.
The lawsuit claims that the School District is violating
state law which requires the School to grant exemptions based
upon religious objections to inoculations. The lawsuit also
claims that the Department of Health regulations are
unconstitutional because they allow school districts to subject
parents to inquisitions regarding their religious beliefs and
give the school district the opportunity to determine whether an
individual’s religious belief are orthodox or are entitled to
protection.
Staver said, "The Hilton Central School District is
requiring Mrs. Curtis to violate her religious beliefs in
exchange for receiving a public education. This the Board cannot
do." Staver also stated, "Subjecting parents to
detailed and intrusive investigations, such as what Mrs. Curtis
encountered, not only violates the United States Constitution’s
guarantee of religious freedom, but also hearkens back to the
Inquisition." Staver concluded, "The School District
and the State Department of Health are obligated by the
Constitution to protect and defend the religious beliefs of
parents. By denying them a religious exemption because another
one of their sons used sugar toppings on his ice cream,
Defendants case mocked those constitutional rights."
# # #
As they say, "Truth is stranger than fiction."
Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Liberty Counsel http://www.lc.org
Back to News
|
|
