Is There a Difference Between Religious and Philosophical Beliefs?
That’s a question at the heart of many issues during these times of “political correctness.” The answer to the difference came from U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon on August 31, 2015 in the decision and Memorandum Opinion  in the case whether the Department of Health and Human Services should enforce the contraception mandate under ObamaCare against an employer for moral beliefs rather than explicitly religious grounds.
The case involved is March for Life, et al. v. Sylvia M Burwell, et al. Case No. 14-cv-1149 (RJL) filed in the District of Columbia.
Judge Leon, in essence, rebuked Health and Human Services and the federal government for violating the Equal Protection clause by allowing only religious groups a waiver for objections to contraception and other products and services. Furthermore, the Judge pointed out that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution demands equal protection for similarly situated entities! Some may choose to call it the raison d’être! The beliefs that make up the reason or purpose for someone’s being—and everyone has them. Usually they are referred to as moral, philosophical or religious beliefs.
Additionally, Judge Leon felt that if a moral objection is the same as a religious objection, then HHS has to honor both religious and philosophical beliefs when dealing with the contraception issue mandates held in ObamaCare that employers must provide contraception care for employees. That decision probably will be to the dismay of HHS, who argued that the plaintiff, March for Life, was not eligible for a waiver since it was not a religious organization.
The Judge stated in his written opinion, “The threshold question is not whether March for Life is ‘generally’ similar to churches and their integrated auxiliaries. It is whether March for Life is similarly situated with regard to the precise attribute selected for accommodation.”
Furthermore, His Honor went on to say:
The equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits lawmakers from “treating differently [entities that] are in all relevant respects alike.” See Nordlinger v. Hahn 505, U.S. 1, 10 (1992) (citation omitted). The practical reality is that regulatory regimes may, and in some cases must, classify persons for one purpose or another. See Pers.Adm’r of Mass. V. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271 (1979). Thus, to preserve the regulatory balance, equal protection prevents only classifications motivated by discriminatory animus. See id. In the ordinary course, laws that neither burden a fundamental right, nor target a suspect class, must satisfy so-called rational basis review—meaning that to survive an equal protection challenge, they must rationally relate to a legitimate governmental purpose. FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993): see Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677, 684-85 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (en banc) (applying rational basis review to an agency regulation). 
Can that rationale also be applied to vaccinations?
Realistically, the other question that has to be asked regarding philosophical and religious beliefs is, “Can Judge Leon’s rationale and reasons explain, and apply to, valid and enforceable exemptions for vaccines and vaccinations?”
For decades, states and schools respected religious and philosophical beliefs as the basis for parents procuring vaccination exemptions for their children. Currently, a nationwide ‘witchhunt’ regarding vaccine exemptions is in progress. One rightfully would have to assume that Judge Leon’s reasons in the above case regarding contraceptives also can be applied to CDC/FDA directives regarding vaccinations. Additionally, religious discrimination should be brought into question.
What about the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act 42 U.S.C.?
It would seem that federal agencies, e.g., CDC/FDA, have more favorable interests in pharmaceutical sales [a] rather than complying with constitutional law and the exercise of constitutional rights surrounding forced and mandatory invasive medical procedures, i.e., vaccinations, thereby inferring discriminatory animus toward conscientious objectors [religious, moral or philosophical] to dubious vaccinations made mandatory.
Readers, and parents in particular, ought to know that early in August 2015 a federal bill had been introduced into the current Congress, the “Vaccinate America’s Children through Complete Information & Education Act of 2015”—Senate Bill S.1921 . That bill will have ‘teeth’ other bills have not had, as it will provide ‘punishment’ to states that don’t have full vaccination mandate compliances.
If Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT), the bill’s sponsor, were to introduce an authentic factual “complete” information vaccination bill, his bill would contain the following requirements: 1) information about the neurotoxins in vaccines; 2) a listing of foreign DNA, animal and fetal tissues used in vaccines—something many people have religious, philosophical or moral objections to; and 3) a complete and factual reporting for each vaccine’s contraindications and adverse events as indicated in each vaccine package insert. All three requirements mentioned must be provided to consumers as part of the education aspect of S.1921. Otherwise, Murphy’s education bill is a total farce and nothing short of a PR stunt for Big Pharma.
Vaccines can induce tragic, chronic  and life-threatening adverse reactions. Furthermore, vaccine safety is extremely questionable since vaccines do not come with scientific proof of “Nonclinical Toxicology,” which would address carcinogens, mutagenesis, impairment of fertility and abilities to induce chronic diseases. Shouldn’t that be part of “Complete Information & Education”? Murphy’s bill is more like a “Murphy’s Law” in that it creates financial penalties for non-compliant states—“Follow the money.”
It will be interesting to see how long U.S. Health and Human Services will ‘stew’ over Judge Leon’s decision before it files appeals until HHS finally gets to a judge who will agree with HHS’s interpretation of constitutional law, thereby enforcing yet another HHS/CDC/FDA mandate.
 Ibid. Pg. 12.
[a] CDC caught wildly overestimating disease epidemic fatality numbers to boost vaccine sales
How Aggressive are Your Student’s College Vaccination Policies?
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)