Alabama Senate passes bill expanding religious exemptions from vaccines
Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, speaks to a colleague on the floor of the Alabama Senate on April 3, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
The Alabama Senate Thursday passed a bill expanding the pool of people who can claim a religious exemption from vaccines and allowing them to do so without explanation.
SB 85, sponsored by Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, extends the existing religious exemption requirements from parents of K-12 students to college students. It also would not require either to provide or explain the reason for the exception or have it certified or approved by local school boards. The legislation also mandates that public colleges and universities provide both religious and medical exemptions if they require students to be vaccinated or tested for diseases. The bill passed 26-5.
Orr said during the floor debate the current system creates unnecessary hurdles and potential costs for parents exercising their religious beliefs, saying that roughly half the states allow a similar exemption process.
'It's not a discretionary function. It is a mandatory function that they have to give you the religious exemption paper. So, why are we doing that? Let's just let parents affirm that they have a religious exemption,' Orr said to reporters after the Senate adjourned.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Several Democrats raised concerns about public health and the potential spread of disease. The state's measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination rate fell below 94% in 2022-23. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 95% of the population needs to be immunized to achieve herd immunity.
Sen. Robert Stewart, D-Selma, said that the state has historically 'worked hard as a state, as a country, to have strong, robust infection control. He said that 'when we talk about religious freedom, we have a duty to keep our communities safe.'
'Public health is a community project, and we should all work together to ensure that our communities are healthy, are viable,' Steward said.
Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, proposed an amendment requiring a person claiming a vaccine exemption to submit a board-approved physical evaluation form or the Alabama High School Athletic Association's Preparticipation Physical Education form. The amendment does not provide an enforcement mechanism or sanctions for not submitting the form. The amendment was approved 21-7,
'At least it gives us an understanding that this child has had some medical attention within the last 12 months prior to them opting out of this particular vaccine,' Singleton said. 'If they don't want to take it to go to school, at least the school now you're bypassing the health department.'
But Sen. Tim Melson, R-Florence, wanted the bill to go further and questioned the focus solely on religious exemptions.
'Why do you have to have a… religious exemption? Why can't it just be a conscientious objection? What are the agnostic people going to do? What are the atheists going to do if they don't want to do it?' Melson asked Orr.
Orr said that he 'would agree' but that he doesn't think that providing conscientious exemption to vaccines, often referred to as a personal exemption, would pass either chamber.
'It would be more of an uphill challenge than it already is,' Orr said. 'So I would love to do that if I were king for a day, but I'm not king.'
Sen. Merika Coleman, D-Birmingham, said she was concerned about removing the Alabama Department of Public Health's role in tracking exemptions. She said that when there may be outbreaks, health departments will be less equipped to trace a potential virus.
'My fear is when we don't leave it there at the health department, then we'll never be able to find out where patient zero is and if there is some type of outbreak, how to be able to bring it under control,' Coleman said.
A similar version of the bill passed the Senate last year but failed in the House.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
The CDC says guns are the No. 1 killer of children. Here's what's really true
With Robert F. Kennedy's Make Children Healthy Again report under attack for questionable science, imaginary research and other 'formatting errors,' as the White House calls them, Democrats are worrying about a politicized public health system selling snake oil to the American public. You don't have to look far back in time for examples of the government public health system and the private sector experts who influence it and spearhead its research efforts selling snake oil. The coronavirus pandemic was rife with them. There was the time public health officials simply made up the claim that staying 6 feet apart would help stop the spread of COVID-19. And the time top officials and scientists conspired to falsely 'debunk' concerns that the coronavirus was released from a Chinese lab. And then there were times when public health advice was politicized, like when public health officials said gathering in groups was unsafe, except if it was to protest the death of George Floyd. They're not just about COVID, either. Remember the great kerfuffle over Flint, Michigan's lead problem? The people who were telling you that Black kids were poisoned forgot to tell you that there own data showed blood lead levels of lead in 'poisoned' kids were much lower than just a decade earlier when nobody was talking about poisoned kids. This weekend, you'll be treated to another misinformation campaign that comes with the imprimatur of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. It's time for the annual 'Gun Violence Awareness Week.' This weekend, buildings all over the country will light up orange in solidarity with those who have lost their lives in what has become a daily bloodbath we spend most of the year ignoring. Among the claims you'll be hearing is one I received from a local Kansas City backer of Moms Demand Action, a gun control group. 'Gun deaths are the number one cause of deaths of American children and adolescents,' her email said. Others say the facts are even more stark. California Gov. Gavin Newsom took out ads on social media saying, 'Guns are the number one killer of kids.' In a speech to mayors, Vice President Kamala Harris said, 'Gun violence is the leading cause of death of the children of America — leading cause of death — not car accidents, not some form of cancer — gun violence.' Facts trigger truth The facts tell a different story. Guns are not the number one killer of children at any age between 0 and 12. They never have been. Cars are the biggest killer. Who says? The CDC database called WONDER that tracks the cause of death in most U.S. deaths indexed by race, sex and age among other characteristics. For a number of kids' years of life, drowning or falls are a greater threat than guns. I asked the Kansas City activist who sent that claim to me why she was spreading such a lie. She didn't respond, but the national press person for Everytown for Gun Safety did reply, citing the CDC and the National Institute of Health as her sources. She sent links. And she's right. Here's what the CDC says: 'Taking into account all types of firearm injuries, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries, firearm injuries were the leading cause of death among children and teens ages one to 19 in 2020 and 2021.' What they mean is if you lump all the dead children and teens in one pile and count how they died, for the whole gruesome pile, the No. 1 killer was guns. But that is only because guns kill so many teens — a large number of them 18- and 19-year-old adult teens. It has nothing to do with children's deaths. Elsewhere on its website, the CDC admits this difference, giving the cause of death for different groups of children as 'accidents.' Why would the CDC do something so misleading? Well, it goes back many decades in which reporting what the leading killer of children and teens was made perfect sense. The killer was the same for them all — accidents, mostly car accidents. So naturally, they reported the number all together. When guns overtook car accidents during the Biden administration, they just kept doing the same thing they had always done. Gun control groups loved it because that let them make the claim that children were dying left and right from guns. That scared concerned parents into backing their agenda and coughing up donations. The Biden administration CDC didn't seem to mind. But there's more to this story that is misleading. Remember guns are the No. 1 killer of teens, but are guns a threat to your kids? Probably not. Which teens? The CDC's WONDER(ful) database reveals that: Guns are not the number one killer of female are not the number one killer of white are not the number one killer of Hispanic are not the number one killer of Asian are not the number one killer of Native American only group for whom this claim is true is Black teens, which is statistically troubling in itself. It isn't like these facts are a shock. I found many of them in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But they do reveal the politicization of our public health experts. When I asked the author of the article, Dr. Elizabeth Wolf, about the gun control groups' claim and the fact that it wasn't actually true that children, female teens, white teens, Hispanic teens, Asian teens and Native American teens were so threatened by guns, she replied that the claim is perfectly accurate and then stopped responding to my emails. That's nuts. So if there is an annual bloodbath of gun violence in the United States, why does the slicing and dicing of dry statistics matter? If your goal is to raise campaign donations and build a national political movement to restrict gun rights, it doesn't matter. Scaring parents whose kids are not at much risk by fudging the issue works great. If your goal is to get Congress to fork over millions in research grants on the problem of gun violence, it works great to make Congress think the bullets are flying everywhere and that the blood is flowing on rural, suburban and urban congressional district streets alike. But if your goal is to actually solve the problem, well, then it really does matter just who is dying and why. Only when we face the answer to that question can we focus resources where the problem is and come up with ways to do something about it. It would be nice if the CDC made that a priority.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
4 ways Trump's ‘one big beautiful bill' would undermine access to Obamacare
Major changes could be in store for the more than 24 million people with health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, including how and when they can enroll, the paperwork required, and, crucially, the premiums they pay. A driver behind these changes is the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' the name given to spending and tax legislation designed to advance the policy agenda of President Donald Trump. It passed the House on May 22 and is pending in the Senate. The changes also would come from regulations the Trump administration proposed in March and the potential expiration of larger premium subsidies put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions of people might drop or lose coverage by 2034 as a result, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Combined, the moves by Trump and his allies could 'devastate access' to ACA plans, said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O'Neill Institute, a health policy research group at Georgetown University. States that run their own Obamacare marketplaces and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners have also raised concerns about added costs and reduced access. But House Republicans and some conservative think tanks say the ACA needs revamping to rein in fraud, part of which they pin on certain Biden administration changes the measures would undo. Senate Republicans must now weigh whether to include the House's proposals in their own bill, with the aim of getting it through the chamber by July 4. Here are four key ways Trump's policies could undermine Obamacare enrollment and coverage. The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which runs more than 1,000 pages, would create paperwork requirements that could delay access to tax credits for some enrollees, potentially raising the cost of their insurance. More than 90% of ACA enrollees receive tax credits to defray monthly premiums for their coverage. There are two key provisions for them to watch. One would end automatic reenrollment for most ACA policyholders each year. More than 10 million people were automatically reenrolled in their coverage for the 2025 plan year, with their eligibility for tax credits confirmed via a system that allows ACA marketplaces to check government or other data sources. The House bill would instead require every new or returning policyholder each year to provide information on income, household size, immigration status, and other factors, starting in 2028. If they don't, they won't get a premium tax credit, which could put the price of coverage out of reach. Louisiana Legislature targets out-of-state doctors who provide abortion pills 'Everyone who wants to either purchase or renew a marketplace plan will have to come with a shoebox filled with documents, scan in and upload them or mail them in, and sit and wait while someone reviews and confirms them,' said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. She and other policy experts fear that many consumers will become uninsured because they don't understand the requirements or find them burdensome. If too many young and healthy people, for example, decide it's not worth the hassle, that could leave more older and sicker people for ACA insurers to cover — potentially raising premiums for everyone. But supporters of the House bill say the current approach needs changing because it is vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. 'This would ensure that enrollees need to return to the exchange to update their information and obtain an updated eligibility determination for a subsidy — best protecting the public against excess subsidies paid to insurers that can never be recovered,' the conservative Paragon Institute wrote in an April letter to top Department of Health and Human Services officials. Today, people who experience life changes — losing a job, getting married or divorced, or having a baby, for instance — are considered provisionally eligible for tax credits to reduce their premiums if they sign up or change their ACA plans. That means they would be eligible to receive these subsidies for at least 90 days while their applications are checked against government data or other sources, or marketplaces follow up with requests for additional information. The House bill would end that, requiring documentation before receiving tax credits. That could create particular hardship for new parents, who can't confirm that babies are eligible for premium subsidies until they receive Social Security numbers weeks after they're born. Policy experts following the debate 'did not expect the end to provisional eligibility,' Corlette said. 'I don't know what the reaction in the Senate will be, as I'm not sure everyone understands the full implications of these provisions because they are so new.' It can take up to six weeks for the Social Security Administration to process a number for a newborn, and an additional two weeks for parents to get the card, according to a white paper that analyzed provisions of the House bill and was co-authored by Jason Levitis, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, and Christen Linke Young, a visiting fellow with Brookings' Center on Health Policy. Without a Social Security number, any application to add a newborn to an ACA policy would automatically generate a hold on premium tax credits for that family, they wrote — increasing their out-of-pocket costs, at least temporarily. 'It puts consumers on the hook for any delays the marketplace is taking,' while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the ACA marketplaces, 'is cutting staff and adding a lot more paperwork to burden the staff they have,' Levitis said. Provisions in the House bill that would require ACA enrollees to provide information each year that they reenroll — or when seeking to add or change a policy due to a life circumstance — would increase the number of people without health insurance by 700,000 in 2034, according to the latest CBO estimate. The House bill would turn into law a Trump proposal to shorten the ACA open enrollment period. The start date would continue to be Nov. 1. But the window would be shortened by about a month, with an end date of Dec. 15. This affects people in states that use the federal marketplace as well as the 19 states and the District of Columbia that run their own, most of which offer open enrollment into at least mid-January. Also, as soon as the end of this year, a special enrollment period the Biden administration created would be done away with. It allowed people with lower incomes — those who earn up to 1.5 times the 2024 federal poverty level, or about $38,730 for a family of three — to sign up anytime during the year. Critics, including the Paragon Institute, argue that this enrollment opening led to fraud, partly blaming it for a steep increase last year in instances of insurance agents seeking commissions by enrolling or switching consumers into plans without their consent, or fudging their incomes to qualify them for tax credits so large they paid no monthly premiums at all. But supporters — including some states that run their own ACA exchange — say there are other ways to address fraud. 'We anticipate that much of the improper activity can be prevented by security and integrity upgrades to the federal marketplace, which we understand the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is implementing,' the National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote in a May 29 letter to congressional leaders. The reason? Enhanced tax credits created during the pandemic expire at the end of the year. The House bill doesn't extend them. Those more generous payments are credited with helping double ACA enrollment since 2020. The CBO estimates that extending the subsidies would cost $335 billion over 10 years. The House bill instead funds an extension of Trump's tax cuts, which largely benefit wealthier families. If the enhanced credits are allowed to expire, not only would premium subsidies be smaller for many people, but there would also be an abrupt eligibility cutoff — an income cliff — for households above four times the federal poverty rate, or about $103,280 for a family of three for this plan year. Taking into account the smaller subsidies and the cliff, KFF estimates a national average premium increase of 75% for enrollees if the enhanced subsidies expire. The CBO expects that about 4.2 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF and subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Most oppose GOP policy bill: Survey
More than half of voters oppose the domestic policy bill that President Trump has pushed Republicans in Congress to pass by July 4, according to a poll released Wednesday. Quinnipiac University's national survey found less than a third of registered voters surveyed support Trump's agenda-setting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, while 53 percent oppose the legislation. Twenty percent had no opinion on the megabill. The bill was overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats (89 percent) and independents (57 percent), while two-thirds of Republicans said they support the bill. The One Big Beautiful Bill includes major cost-cutting reforms to Medicaid that experts say will lead to millions of people losing coverage by 2034. It would force states to implement new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, but supporters of the bill say that will mostly affect people who entered the U.S. illegally and 'able-bodied' adults who should be working. The Quinnipiac poll found overwhelming support for Medicaid, though, as 87 percent of respondents said they oppose cuts to the healthcare program. Just 10 percent said federal Medicaid spending should be cut, while 47 percent said funding should be increased and 40 percent said it should stay the same. 'With Medicaid's future as a healthcare safety net for millions suddenly uncertain, voters make it clear they want the 60-year-old program for those in need to be handled with care,' Quinnipiac polling analyst Tim Malloy said. Twenty-one percent of Republicans surveyed said they think federal funding for Medicaid should increase, 56 percent said it should stay about the same, and 18 percent said it should be cut. Nearly 70 percent of Democrats and 47 percent of independents surveyed think federal funding for Medicaid should increase, while 2 percent of Democrats and 11 percent of independents think it should decrease. The Big Beautiful Bill narrowly passed the House last month and is under review in the Senate, where some Republicans have argued that it doesn't cut federal spending enough.
