Wright v. DeWitt School Dist. No. 1 of Arkansas County
Decision Date | 11 January 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 5-3408,5-3408 |
Citation | 238 Ark. 906,385 S.W.2d 644 |
Parties | Ulyess WRIGHT et al., Appellants, v. DeWITT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 OF ARKANSAS COUNTY, Ark., Appellee. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Tom Gentry, Little Rock, for appellants.
Macom & Moorhead, Stuttgart, for appellee.
The issue presented in this case is whether a state health regulation is in conflict with freedom of religion as ordained by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The appellants, adults and school age children, are members of a church known as the General Assembly and Church of the First Born. The appellee, DeWitt School District #1 of Arkansas County, pursuant to a state health regulation, required all students to be vaccinated against smallpox as a prerequisite to attending the school. This requirement contravenes appellants' religious beliefs. As a result the appellants instituted this action to enjoin the appellee school district from enforcing this regulation as to themselves and others similarly situated, alleging that such regulation would require appellants to do an act opposed to their religious beliefs and is in violation of their religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Federal Constitution; that the school age appellants had been attending the schools operated by appellee for many years without being vaccinated and as a result no one had suffered any adverse effect; that there had been no smallpox in Arkansas County for more than fifty years and that no immediate, grave or present danger existed which justified any infringement upon their constitutional right of the free exercise of their religious views. This appeal is from the decree of the chancellor sustaining appellee's demurrer and dismissing the complaint.
The sole point relied upon by appellants for reversal is that: 'These appellants may not be required to submit to vaccination as a prerequisite to attend the schools operated by appellee under the facts in this case as such would be in violation of their rights of the free exercise of their religion as guaranteed to them by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'
We think the chancellor was correct in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint. The appellants do not have the legal right to resist on religious grounds the enforcement of this health regulation requiring the vaccination of all children as a prerequisite to attendance of the schools operated by the appellee. Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927, 377 S.W.2d 816. There we held:
The questioned state health measure, quoted in the Cude case, is Regulation #21, Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Communicable Diseases, 1960 Revision, approved by the State Board of Health July 28, 1960. The State Health Department has the authority to promulgate health regulations having the effect of law for the purpose of efficiently controlling communicable diseases. Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 82-109, 82-110 (Repl.1960). We have long recognized the health regulation requiring vaccination of all school children as being a valid exercise of the police power of the state. State v. Martin & Lipe, 134 Ark. 420, 204 S.W. 622; Seubold v. Fort Smith Special School Dist., 218 Ark. 560, 237 S.W.2d 884.
It is well settled that a demurrer admits facts well pleaded in a complaint. Therefore, appellants argue their allegation that no immediate, grave or present danger exists must be taken as true since the appellant children have been attending school without being vaccinated and no case of smallpox has occurred in Arkansas County for more than fifty years. Appellants insist that these elements of imminent danger must exist before there can be any valid interference with their religious liberties and that the trial court should have overruled the demurrer and required such proof. We do not agree with this contention. Seubold v. Fort Smith Special School District, supra.
It is well known that smallpox is a contagious disease which is a scourge to mankind. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the boundaries of a county present any barrier to the spread of this infectious disease. Our courts, both state and federal, take judicial notice of the very nature of this loathsome disease and that it presents a clear and ever present danger which is best controlled by health measures such as the one in question. In Cude v. State, supra, we said:
'It is a matter of common knowledge that prior to the development of protection against smallpox by vaccination, the disease, on occasion, ran rampant and caused great suffering and sickness throughout the world.'
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 it was argued, as in the case at bar, that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint questioning the validity of a health regulation. There the state put in evidence only the health regulation requiring vaccination and that the offer of free vaccination was made to the appellant. The appellant made various offers of proof, none of which were allowed by the court. Appellant offered to submit proof that three-fourths of the states did not require vaccination; that 'Smallpox has ceased to be the scourge which it once was,'; that 'The states which make no provision for vaccination are not any more afflicted with smallpox than those which compel vaccination,'; and that 'The Board of Health is entrusted with arbitrary power, and determines the necessity for, and methods of, vaccination'. In rejecting all of these contentions and upholding the trial court's refusal of this proffered proof the court said:
Thus, the courts are not required to listen to conflicting evidence as to the need of vaccination against smallpox. The legislature, acting through its duly constituted agency, is the proper forum to determine by a reasonable enactment what the health, morals and safety of the public require for the common good.
Also, in Jacobson the court took judicial notice of the need for vaccination:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Green
... ... 1933, P.L. 1433, § 1 [448 Pa. 340] et seq., as amended, ... 11 P.S ... hand, In re Tuttendario, 21 Pa.Dist. 561 (Q.S.Phila.1912), ... held that surgery on ... requiring school attendance (footnote omitted), regulating or ... Washington v. King County Hospital, 278 F.Supp. 488, 503 ... n. 10 ... 643 (1905) (compulsory ... vaccination); Wright v. DeWitt School District, 238 Ark. 906, ... 385 ... ...
-
Wisconsin v. Yoder 8212 110
...29 U.S.C. § 203(l). 20 Cf. e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905); Wright v. DeWitt School District, 238 Ark. 906, 385 S.W.2d 644 (1965); Application of President and Directors of Georgetown College, Inc., 118 U.S.App.D.C. 80, 87—90, 331 F.2d 1000, 1......
-
City of Fayetteville v. S & H, Inc.
...by a reasonable enactment what the health, morals and safety of the public require for the common good. Wright v. DeWitt School District No. 1, 238 Ark. 906, 385 S.W.2d 644. See also, Berman v. Parker, supra. It may prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of the peopl......
-
Green, In re
...laws); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905) (compulsory vaccination); Wright v. DeWitt School District, 238 Ark. 906, 385 S.W.2d 644 (1965) (compulsory vaccination).1 The Yoder Court stated:'Indeed it seems clear that if the State is empowered, as Parens......
-
Constitutional Challenges to the OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate
...Free Sch. Dist ., 672 F. Supp. 81, 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1987); Davis v. State, 451 A.2d 107, 112 n.8 (Md. 1982); Wright v. De Witt Sch. Dist., 385 S.W.2d 644, 646–48 (Ark. 1965); Cude v. State, 377 S.W.2d 816, 819–20 (Ark. 1964); Bd. of Ed. of Mountain Lakes v. Maas, 152 A.2d 394, 404 (N.J. Super. ......
-
Who Calls the Shots?: Parents Versus the Parens Patriae Power of the States to Mandate Vaccines for Children in New York
...goes beyond what the federal Constitution requires).121. Hodge & Gostin, supra note 19, at 859 (quoting Wright v. DeWitt Sch. Dist., 385 S.W.2d 644, 648 (Ark. 1965)).122. Measles Cases and Outbreaks of Measles (Rubeola), CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, https://www.cdc.gov/measles/ca......