CHARLESTON — After weeks of anticipation, the West Virginia House of Delegates narrowly defeated Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s bill that would have allowed for parents and guardians to use a religious exemption to the state’s mandatory school-age immunization program.

The House defeated Senate Bill 460, relating to vaccine requirements, in a 42-56 vote Monday afternoon after more than two hours of debate with just under three weeks left in the 2025 legislative session.

SB 460, as amended by the House Friday, would have allowed for a religious exemption to vaccines for students attending public schools, with the parent/guardian submitting a written statement of the exemption to the school administrator or state-regulated child care center.

“Senate Bill 460 updates the medical exemption process and provides for a religious exemption to the compulsory immunization requirements,” explained House Health and Human Resources Committee Chairman Evan Worrell, R-Cabell.

The bill would have allowed a private or parochial school to elect to have its own religious exemption policy different from what is being prescribed in State Code. The private/parochial school would inform the West Virginia Department of Education in writing of its policy, which would allow private/parochial to also follow the state mandatory school-age immunization policy if it so wishes.

SB 460 also made reforms to the existing medical exemption process and would have allowed a licensed physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner to submit a written statement to the school administrator or operator of the state-regulated child care center providing a student with a medical exemption for a specific required immunization if that medical professional determined the vaccination could be detrimental to the child’s health or is not appropriate.

The bill, introduced on behalf of Morrisey and based on an executive order signed by the governor, originally allowed for both religious and philosophical objections to school-age vaccines. State Code requires children attending school to show proof of immunization for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella and hepatitis B unless proof of a medical exemption can be shown.

According to State Code, a request for an exemption to the compulsory immunization requirements must be accompanied by the certification of a licensed physician. The state health officer or a designated immunization officer can then approve or reject the medical exemption request. A child or parent/guardian would need to produce the certificate from the state health officer to their school granting the medical exemption.

One-fourth of the 100-member House spoke Monday during the floor debate on SB 460, with 10 speaking in favor of the bill and 15 speaking against the bill. Supporters of the bill argued that it returned freedom of choice to parents who might have religious concerns or other concerns.

“This isn’t vaccine freedom; this is religious freedom,” said Del. David Green, R-McDowell, the lead sponsor of an amendment Friday that returned the religious exemption to SB 460.

“People aren’t pushing this bill so they don’t have to vaccinate their children, but they are pushing this for them to have liberty and freedom to choose how to take care of their children so they can, with clear conscience, stand before almighty God, knowing that they fulfilled their God-given responsibility and take care of their children in the way it feels best,” Green continued.

“The issue comes down to personal choice,” said Del. Rick Hillenbrand, R-Hampshire. “I don’t encourage people to walk out into the middle of Kanawha Boulevard at night with their eyes closed, but if you’re an adult and you’re willing to accept the responsibilities for your choices, he should be allowed that freedom.”

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 30 states offer a religious exemption to mandatory immunization requirements, while 13 states offer both a religious and philosophical exemption. And two states – Louisiana and Minnesota – do not specify whether a non-medical immunization exemption needs to be for religious or personal reasons.

But 47 Republican members of the House joined with all nine members of the House Democratic caucus to vote down the bill, citing concerns about decreasing the number of children in the state without needed vaccinations, decreasing herd immunity within the population, and public opinion polling showing overwhelming opposition to the bill.

“These vaccine laws are so important. It’s important for the protection of our children,” said House Health Committee Vice Chairwoman Anitra Hamilton, D-Monongalia. “It is our duty. It is our obligation to protect our kids from harm. Why would we want our kids to endure this on the stance of individual rights? We must stand on the right side of history, which is right now, and protect our kids from a monster.”

“I acknowledge that we in the State of West Virginia are an outlier in requiring these 10 childhood immunizations, but I believe it is safeguarding our children and our citizens,” said Del. Bob Fehrenbacher, R-Wood. “I also frankly believe there will be a significant increase of unvaccinated children who will put us at risk in this state. Young children and adults who may have some deficiencies in being able to be protected.”

In a statement, the Governor’s Office said the bill that was rejected by the House Monday was wildly different from the bill that was introduced on his behalf at the beginning of the legislative session, accusing the process of being “derailed.”

“The debate over vaccines has sadly derailed since Governor Morrisey put forth common sense policy to provide for a religious exemption from unworkable, rigorous mandates,” said Alex Lanfranconi, communications director for Morrisey. “West Virginia remains an outlier by failing to provide these exemptions, aligning with liberal states like California and New York. SB 460 looks radically different from the bill proposed by the governor, which remains the best chance for a compromise this session — addressing both public health and religious liberty concerns.”