The West Virginia House Committee on Health and Human Resources approved a version of Senate Bill 460 that does not include religious or philosophical exemptions to the state’s school vaccination laws on Tuesday, March 18, 2025 in Charleston, W.Va. (Perry Bennett | West Virginia Legislative Photography)
A bill that would loosen West Virginia’s strict school vaccination requirements is headed for a vote by the full House of Delegates without a key component that Gov. Patrick Morrisey ordered earlier this year — religious and philosophical exemptions to those requirements.
The House’s Committee on Health and Human Resources on Tuesday approved its own version of Senate Bill 460. The new version of the bill merely amends the process by which families get medical exemptions to the state’s school immunization laws.
All states require school students to be vaccinated for a number of infectious diseases. West Virginia is currently among five that do not allow religious or philosophical exemptions to those requirements. Health officials have touted the state’s strict vaccination laws as preventing outbreaks of diseases including measles.
On his second day in office, Gov. Patrick Morrisey issued an executive order requiring the state Bureau for Public Health to allow the state’s school students to be exempted from vaccination requirements based on their religious beliefs. Morrisey said that the exemption will be implemented through the Equal Protection for Religion Act, a bill signed by former Gov. Jim Justice in 2023.
“I think most West Virginians care very deeply that our citizens have religious beliefs, and we also know that the First Amendment to our Constitution has specific clauses calling for free association,” Morrisey said at the time.
As it passed in the Senate last month, the bill would have allowed families who want a religious exemption to a vaccine to submit a written statement to their school or day care administrator saying that the requirements cannot be met because they conflict with the parents’ or emancipated child’s religious or philosophical beliefs. It would also have loosened the process for families to seek a medical exemption to requirements.
Current law requires the medical provider of a family seeking a medical exemption to provide documentation of the medical need for the exemption to the state immunization officer for approval.
The new version of the bill would permit a person to obtain a written statement for an exemption for a vaccination requirement from their licensed physician, physician assistant or nurse practitioner, if that health care provider determines it is or may be detrimental to the child’s health or not appropriate.
During prior committee meetings, lawmakers heard testimony from people about the difficulty they had getting a medical exemption approved by the state.
According to a report by the state Bureau for Public Health, 53 medical exemption requests were made in 2023. Of those, 19 were denied, nine were given a permanent exemption, 24 were given a temporary exemption and one was listed in an “other” category.
Del. Chris Anders, R-Berkeley, argued that taking out the religious and philosophical exemptions to the vaccine requirements is a violation of the First Amendment to the constitution and conflicts with the Parents Bill of Rights legislation that lawmakers recently approved.
“Forced medical procedures are a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, not a free country,” Anders said. “Freedom means informed consent, not government mandates. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of medical ethics. Removing these exemptions destroys that standard medical decisions should be made between individuals and their doctor, not not dictated by politicians or on elected bureaucrats.
“We are a free people,” he said. “We are not subjects of the state. Government does not own our bodies or our children’s bodies.”
Del. Ian Masters, R-Berkeley, said he would have liked the bill to have been stronger, but it does fix the medical exemption process, which currently “essentially doesn’t exist.” In the past 10 years, he said, 67% of medical exemption requests have been denied or delayed.
“Here we have an opportunity for the doctor actually seeing the child and actually giving the medical advice, boots on the ground, to actually finally have some impact. To at least finally have a medical exemption,” Masters said. “We don’t currently really have one of those right now. While I may want some other type of exemptions, at least with this, we are actually providing a medical exemption. So I would support the amendment as it stands.”
Speaking against the bill, Del. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, said the new version is an improvement, but the legislation is still a dangerous bill.
“While my friend from Berkeley stated that there are currently no medical exemptions, I believe there are. That’s what we have in the law now — strict medical exemptions,” Pushkin said. “What I don’t believe there are, in reality, are religious or philosophical exemptions. I know of no religion that would want us to put children at risk, none. And while I believe in parental rights. I don’t think somebody else’s parent has the right to endanger somebody else’s child, but that’s what you get with these types of decisions.”
The committee approved an amendment from Del. Adam Burkhammer, R-Lewis, that says health care providers who give medical exemptions in good faith are immune from civil liability unless his or her actions were the result of “gross negligence or willful misconduct.”
The committee voted down an amendment from Del. Michael Amos, R-Wayne, that would have required that medical providers issuing a medical exemption be licensed to practice in West Virginia and board certified in pediatrics or family medicine.
During a committee hearing about the legislation last month, former state health officer Dr. Matthew Christiansen suggested requiring medical exemptions to come from providers who are licensed to practice in the state.
“Many of the exemptions I received [as state health officer] are from out of state doctors who issue exemptions, oftentimes on a cash basis or by telehealth visit,” Christiansen told the committee. “I think it’s important that those doctors and nurse practitioners and PAs practice in West Virginia with a license.”
Those who objected to the amendment said that families in parts of the state that border other states may see physicians in those other states. Amos, a physician, countered by saying that it’s common for physicians to be licensed to practice in bordering states and that he himself is licensed in Kentucky and Ohio.
Committee members also rejected an amendment from Pushkin that would have reinstated previous language in the bill to require schools and day care facilities to report yearly the number of students enrolled in the school or child care center who have been granted an exemption from vaccination and the percentage of students enrolled in the school who have been granted an exemption. The reporting requirements were included in the bill as requested by Morrisey, but amended out in the Senate.
The committee approved an amendment from Del. Sarah Drennen, R-Putnam that requires medical providers who submit medical exemptions report to the state health officer how many children they granted a medical exemption to and where the students reside. The state health officer would report the information yearly to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Health.
The bill is next expected to go to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.