NY’s Amish communities, vaccinations and the battle for the ‘greater good’

New York Post - Mar 15th, 2025

New York's Amish community is embroiled in a legal battle over school vaccination mandates. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Amish, who challenged the 2019 repeal of religious exemptions for school vaccinations in New York. This decision follows a history of tension between the state's public health policies and religious minorities, sparked by past outbreaks in vaccine-hesitant communities. The Amish schools, which operate independently without public funding, faced significant penalties for allowing unvaccinated students. The court's decision aligns with previous rulings that have rejected religious freedom arguments against mandatory vaccinations.

This legal dispute highlights ongoing debates about constitutional rights, religious freedom, and public health mandates. The Amish community's skepticism toward external authorities and emphasis on self-sufficiency contrasts sharply with state-imposed health directives. As the case heads towards potential Supreme Court review, it underscores the broader implications of balancing public health with personal freedoms. The outcome could set significant precedents, revisiting historic decisions like Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld state powers in health emergencies. The tension between maintaining public health and respecting religious beliefs remains a contentious issue in the U.S., particularly in politically charged contexts.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Supreme Court Legal Battle Amish Community Second Circuit Court Of Appeals New York Vaccination Laws Religious Exemptions Public Health Mandates

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article addresses a timely and significant issue of public interest, exploring the tension between religious freedoms and public health mandates. It presents a clear narrative that is easy to follow, but it lacks balance and transparency, with a noticeable bias towards the perspective of religious communities. The absence of diverse sources and explicit citations weakens its credibility, although it effectively highlights the controversy and potential impact on public opinion. Overall, while the article engages with important themes, its quality is diminished by its partiality and insufficient sourcing.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims that are partially supported by historical and legal contexts, such as the repeal of religious exemptions for vaccinations in New York and the cited Supreme Court cases like Jacobson v. Massachusetts. However, it lacks specific citations to authoritative sources for some claims, such as the exact details of penalties imposed on Amish schools or the composition of the Second Circuit Court. The story also presents a potentially biased interpretation of events, such as the characterization of legal decisions as an 'assault' on religious minorities, which requires additional verification and context.

Balance

The article predominantly presents the perspective of the Amish and other religious communities as victims of governmental overreach, particularly by Democratic leaders. It lacks a balanced representation of the public health rationale for vaccination mandates and does not adequately explore the perspectives of public health officials or the broader community impacted by vaccination policies. The narrative seems to favor the viewpoint that religious freedoms are being unfairly targeted, without equally considering the public health objectives.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the narrative of the Amish community's legal battles. However, the tone is somewhat emotive and opinionated, which may affect the perceived neutrality of the piece. Despite this, the story is easy to follow and presents its main arguments coherently.

Source quality

The article does not explicitly cite sources or provide references for its claims, which undermines its credibility. While it references well-known legal cases and public figures, it lacks direct quotes, data, or studies from authoritative sources such as public health agencies, legal experts, or government officials. This absence of diverse and credible sources makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its methodology and fails to disclose the basis for its claims. There is no clear explanation of how the information was gathered or verified. Additionally, potential conflicts of interest or biases are not disclosed, such as the political leanings of the publication or the author, which could impact the impartiality of the reporting.