The history of "science-based" laws is pretty horrific. Just about anything can be called science and used to support prejudice, racism, oppression of any group labeled "other" and so on.Be careful of the rhetoric about "science-based" laws. The laws aren't, of course, but these people will turn deaf, ignorant ears toward you when you mention things like pertussis and mumps vaccine failures.
What's important is that they're overlooking something. Above all else, policies must be ethics-based. And to date, nobody has made an ethical case for blackmailing children with their education unless they submit to medical risk-taking using a profit-based, readily expandable, liability-free vaccine schedule that includes vaccines for diseases not even transmissible in classrooms.
If policies were strictly science-based, everybody would be required to undergo medical painful medical experiments in order to "advance science."
That's why we have ethics---to hold scientists, politicians, and health care professionals accountable.
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn was professor of medical ethics at the University of Chicago, an oxymoron if there ever was one and said so.Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams, who had written in 1644 of a"hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
That is one point of view. I know there are others. The religious right thing keeps getting confused legally since the 1950s.