Explainer: Biden administration issues OSHA vaccine mandate
By / Nov 5

On Nov. 4, the Biden administration issued a COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). The stated purpose of this rule is “to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers (100 or more employees) from the risk of contracting COVID-19 by strongly encouraging vaccination.” The intent to issue this rule was announced in September by President Biden, but the text of the rule was issued in November.

What is OSHA?

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is under the Department of Labor. Established by President Richard Nixon in 1970, the agency’s mission is “to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for workers by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance.” OSHA’s jurisdiction covers most private and public sector employers, making the vaccine mandate announcement one of the most wide-reaching to date. 

This is not the first time that OSHA has intervened in the COVID pandemic. In June of this year, they announced a rule requiring healthcare employers to provide protective equipment such as masks and gloves, ensure proper ventilation, and screen patients at risk for COVID. This emergency standard was limited to healthcare employers (because of the group’s high-risk factors), though additional optional measures were disseminated for other industries such as manufacturing, retail, and food supply chains. 

What is the proposed rule?

The rule states that “covered employers must develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or elect to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.”

In short, the rule requires employers with 100 or more employees to submit their employees to weekly COVID-19 testing and masking requirements, or the employees can opt to receive one of the three vaccines that are approved or authorized for the prevention of COVID-19 in the U.S.: Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson.

The OSHA rule will affect approximately 84 million private-sector workers across the country, including some 31 million who are believed to be unvaccinated.

It’s important to note that this rule doesn’t require an employee to receive the vaccine, but if they choose not to be vaccinated, they must undergo testing every week.  

What is the timeframe?

By Jan. 4, 2022 employees who work for employers with 100 or more people must be vaccinated or submit to weekly testing and masking requirements. The rule was published in the federal register on Nov. 5, and it is open for public comments for 30 days. The ERLC will be submitting public comments to OSHA about this issue.

Are there religious exemptions?

There are three exemptions listed in the rule rule:

  1. For whom a vaccine is medically contraindicated;
  2. For whom medical necessity requires a delay in vaccination; or
  3. Who are legally entitled to a reasonable accommodation under federal civil rights laws because they have a disability or sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances that conflict with the vaccination requirement.

While there are stated religious liberty exemptions, it is concerning that the ETS requires each covered employer to establish and implement their own written policy regarding religious exemptions. With this rule, each employer is effectively tasked with creating their own policies, and there will be thousands of different policies throughout the country, leading to inconsistent application and confusion. The proposed rule doesn’t offer any guidance for how to structure exemptions for objectors who have sincerely held religious beliefs.

How does this affect SBC entities?

On Nov. 5, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) and Asbury Theological Seminary, filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to challenge the OSHA rule. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of SBTS, stated that “it is unacceptable for the government to force religious institutions to become coercive extensions of state power. We have no choice but to push back against this intrusion of the government into matters of conscience and religious conviction.”

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, 

“the lawsuit The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, alleges that the Biden administration lacks jurisdiction to dictate employment practices to religious institutions, lacks constitutional and statutory authority to issue the employer mandate, and that the mandate failed to meet the required procedural hurdles. In short, the federal government cannot coerce individuals nationwide to undergo medical treatment, and it lacks authority to conscript employers to compel that result.”

Is this the proper role of the government?

This rule raises questions and concerns about limits of government regulation both in terms of public health and safety measures. While governments do have heightened responsibilities during a public health crisis, the state must not use public health emergencies to overstep and exert authority that the Constitution has not entrusted it with.

ERLC’s Acting President, Brent Leatherwood stated:

From the outset of the challenges presented by COVID-19, we have consistently argued that  guidance from elected officials and public health experts is the path to take in lieu of mandates –– particularly as it relates to religious entities. This proposed rule is not that. Some private institutions will raise serious objections to government overreach. The better route for the state to take is providing clear, consistent, and coherent counsel that our fight is against a deadly disease, not one another.

How will the ERLC engage?

The OSHA interim final rule is open for public comments through Dec. 6. As we have done on previous occasions with proposed rules affecting churches and religious organizations, the ERLC will submit public comments expressing concerns with the scope of the regulation on behalf of our convention of churches. 

How should Christians think about this?

The ERLC has emphatically stated since the beginning of this public health challenge that government officials should opt for providing guidance over mandates, while at the same time seeking to uphold the free exercise of religion. Elected officials and local health experts should be actively partnering with pastors and churches to serve local communities as this pandemic rages on.

Why Christians should navigate questions of vaccine mandates and religious exemptions with wisdom
By / Aug 26

Between the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in winter 2019 and the subsequent worldwide pandemic that has killed over 4.4 million, the astounding speed at which treatments and vaccines for this deadly virus have been developed is nothing short of miraculous. This speed is due in large part to the concerted and concentrated efforts by governments, medical providers, researchers, local communities, and pharmaceutical companies around the world. In the United States, Operation Warp Speed and other major government interventions have propelled the rapid, yet safe development of these life-saving vaccines as well as the incredible free and open distribution to all those eligible.

While some have raised specific concerns about the safety, timeline, or even the processes used in their creation, the evidence is clear that these vaccines are safe and effective. This was seen most recently in the announcement from the Food and Drug Administration in the United States which gave the first full approval to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Many of the pressing concerns and ethical quandaries have been addressed by medical professionals, as well as Christian ethicists, who support their use and wide distribution throughout society.

With COVID cases still on the rise across the nation due to the delta variant, low vaccination rates in many parts of the country, and the widespread free access to these medical marvels, many businesses and organizations — both in the private and public sector — are beginning to plan for or institute vaccine requirements in order to combat the severity of these outbreaks. Vaccine requirements have recently been announced for those in crucial fields such as healthcare, the military, schools, and other large organizations in recognition of the high-risk situations in which those in these fields operate and for the safety of all involved, including their families and individuals medically unable to get a vaccine. The decision to require vaccinations is serious and consequential — especially for those vaccines that have not received full FDA approval and are being used on emergency authorization.

Vaccines and negative tests

While some communities, businesses, and organizations have decided to require either some proof of vaccination or a recent negative test for access to specific services or amenities, a widespread federal mandate is still unlikely to be announced at this point. As businesses and organizations begin to think through requirements for vaccines, often in combination with negative diagnostic tests, it is important to remember how politically charged this entire situation has become. From rampant COVID-19 disinformation to the political scoreboard often being used to evaluate these public health decisions, any type of mandate will likely receive considerable pushback from some employees — whether spawning from true medical or religious concerns, or fears and misunderstandings based on misinformation. 

As individuals inquire about exemptions, it would be wise for businesses and organizations to encourage these members of their team to meet with their doctors and direct them to outlets with credible information on the life-saving nature of these vaccines. This is especially important as they make personal healthcare decisions that not only affect themselves but those they will interact with in public. Providing space for open dialogue, addressing concerns, and providing certain accommodations based on true medical or religious objections may also help to temper some of the politicization of these debates as we seek to prioritize the health and safety of our communities.

The gravity of religious exemptions

As the likelihood of vaccine requirements for certain aspects of society become more of a reality, many pastors and church leaders will also be involved in these decisions because people may seek religious accommodation in order to not take the vaccine. Certain faith groups and denominations have claimed religious exemptions based on sincere religious convictions for various medical interventions; have consistently argued over time against the use of vaccines; or may have certain moral objections to the COVID vaccines in particular. Yet, pastors and ministry leaders must be aware that some people may seek a religious exemption to these mandates not out of any direct or meaningful religious objection or issue of faith but out of a desire to disregard the mandates that have been common throughout our nation’s history and frequently upheld by the courts.

According to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an organization that has long advocated for religious freedom throughout our society, “(US) Courts have ruled for over a century that the government may require mandatory vaccines in certain circumstances. Religious objectors may be entitled to accommodations in some circumstances.” ADF also encourages anyone seeking these types of religious accommodations or exemptions from vaccine mandates to seek to determine whether one’s objections actually rise to the level of a religious objection, not simply a medical, social, or political objection. ADF states that “many people have medical or other concerns which do not rise to the level of an actual religious belief. A belief that taking a vaccine is unwise or could be harmful will normally be considered a medical or health objection, not a religious objection.” Defined claims to religious objection must be taken seriously, but claiming a religious objection is no guarantee that public or private entities will recognize it.

Pastors and ministry leaders need to take caution in counseling or even endorsing these types of exemptions because of the gravity of the moral and conscience-based issues involved. Not only can it be disingenuous to claim a religious exemption when one is not present, but spurious claims can also damage the integrity of other religious freedom assertions in the future and what level of trust religious organizations still have in society. 

Many denominations, including the Southern Baptist Convention, have long supported vaccines, advocated for their use, and even assisted in distribution. In recent decades, the International Mission Board has become one of the largest vaccine-givers — beginning with the ground-breaking polio vaccines in the 1950s — throughout the eastern United States. This is due to the necessity of vaccines in order to send missionaries across the world to share the hope of Christ to the nations.

Therefore, pastors and ministry leaders should proceed with caution if asked to give counsel or endorse a religious exemption claim to vaccine mandates. While this will come down to the discretion and wisdom of specific leaders, it is paramount that pastors understand the gravity of their counsel and the consistency of opposition. While ADF notes that it is “inappropriate for an employer to demand that an employee support their religious accommodation request with statements from the employee’s church or clergy” according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, pastor and ministry leaders will likely be asked in certain cases to defend or support a religious exemption based on social, political, or medical concerns. This can put the church and its leaders in difficult circumstances, especially in terms of ethical and integrity issues.

Standing for religious freedom and wisdom

The situation we find ourselves in today with COVID-19 is dire as many of our hospitals hit maximum capacity and medical professionals begin to suffer extreme exhaustion, putting a massive strain on the local healthcare infrastructure. Thousands upon thousands have lost their lives and many more lost their livelihoods due to the measures enacted to contain the spread of this unrelenting virus. And by God’s grace, we now have solutions in order to mitigate the widespread impact of this pandemic.

Pastors and ministry leaders have already been under enormous stress due to ministry in these chaotic times. The prospect of sorting through yet another pandemic-related dilemma is also daunting. Still, it is important to remember that approaching questions about religious liberty claims is something of deep consequence. We must not allow or give support to mere personal or political preferences masquerading as religious liberty claims. Indeed, doing so is not only morally disingenuous but also can do long-term damage to the credibility of pastors, churches, and Christian institutions in our communities. At the same time, pastors should graciously and patiently consult with those seeking such exemptions or accommodations in order to determine whether the request is predicated on sincere religious grounds. 

Religious liberty is fundamental to the Christian faith and American life. It is a right that our government is designed to recognize and uphold, but also a right that must be guarded and respected given other deeply concerning religious freedom violations we have experienced over the years. As we continue to address questions about vaccines and mandates, Christians should strive to base our decisions not on politics or hearsay but on sound biblical reasoning and the best information available.