Unvaccinated student with bogus religious exemption loses in court

A Kentucky judge has ruled against an unaccompanied Catholic high school student who has been hospitalized for the past two years.

On April 2, Judge James Schrand of Boone County Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction that would allow the student, 18-year-old Jerome Kunkel, to return to classes and activities at Our Lady of Assumption Academy in Walton, Kentucky. In denying the request, Judge Schrand sided with the Northern Kentucky Health Department, which argued that it was a lawful practice for a dangerous infectious disease.

The outbreak sickened at least 32 in the Assumption's community and had the potential to spread further. Of Assumption's 240 students, only 18 percent have received all of their vaccinations, according to the school's registrar.

In his lawsuit, Kunkel, a senior and "important player" on the boys' basketball team at the school, said he opposes vaccination on religious grounds and argued in court that the ban violated his Constitutional rights. In an interview with The Washington Post, Kunkel's father, Bill, called the health department's actions "tyranny against our religion, our faith, our country."

The court disagrees-as does his own religion.

The crux of the Kunkel's argument against vaccination is that the chickenpox vaccine is "derived from aborted fetal cells," and the Catholic Church opposes abortion. There is Some truth in their objection. Both types of chickenpox vaccines available (brand names Varivax and ProQuad) use a weakened form of the virus that is propagated in a lineage of cells dubbed MRC-5. This cell line was developed from the lung tissue of a 14-week-old fetus, aborted for "psychiatric reasons" in 1966. Both forms of the vaccine may contain "residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein," according to manufacturers.

From that, the Kunkels concluded that the vaccine is immoral and should be rejected absolutely. But the Catholic Church disagreed, taking a more nuanced stance. In a 2005 statement on the matter, the Vatican noted its ethical objection to the manufacturing methods of such vaccines and encouraged the use of alternatives when possible. The purpose of this study is to provide a framework for the prevention and control of the disease. "The argument would seem to be more likely to result in severe pregnancy, and it may be more likely to occur in pregnancy, life-threatening infections in newborns.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center spells out the church's position further, concluding: "There would be no proper grounds for refusing immunization against dangerous contagious diseases, for example, rubella, especially in light of the concern that we should all have for health. of children, public health, and the common good. "

When confronted with the church's stance in an interview with the Post, Bill Kunkel gave a confusing response: "That does not mean anything to me," he said. "I follow the laws of the Church, and I know what's right and wrong." Kunkel added that abortion is a moral absolute.

Judge Schrand stated in his rulings that Kunkel's case is not likely to prevail, citing legal precedents for the health department's actions.

In a statement, the health department responded, writing:

We are pleased with the Court's careful and thorough review of the evidence and legal issues posed in this case. The Court's ruling … the most important consequences for the health of people living with the disease. is left unabated and uncontrolled.