Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorQuackenbush, Devin W.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-18T17:17:27Z
dc.date.available2013-02-18T17:17:27Z
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.citation42 Creighton L. Rev. 777 (2008-2009)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40653
dc.description.abstractFIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|Immunizations are imperative for society's health and safety. It is well settled that individual rights must be subordinated to the compelling state interest of protecting society from the spread of disease. Furthermore, the Supreme Court decided that a government entity may adopt compulsory immunization programs to protect the health and safety of the public long ago. However, some religious beliefs require that a person abstain from immunizations. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws that respect an establishment of religion or laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. In attempting to honor the First Amendment rights of individuals with religious objections to immunization, some states allow exemptions from mandatory immunization laws. However, legislatures endeavor to limit the number of exemptions given to individuals with religious objections to immunizations so as to prevent an outbreak of disease in an effort to protect public health...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleReligion's Hepatitis B Shot: The Arkansas General Assembly Established an Overly Broad Religious Exemption to Mandatory Immunization after the District Court Invalidated the Original Religious Exemption - McCarthy v. Ozark School Districten_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume42en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note2008-2009en_US
dc.description.pages777en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record