Welcome to the Land of the Fee and Home of the Slave;~(((
Prince v. Massachusetts
, 321 U.S. 158, 166-167 (1944) (But the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333. And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. Acting to guard the general interest in youth’s wellbeing, the state, as parens patriae, may restrict the parent’s control by requiring school attendance,[9]regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor[10] and in many other ways.[11] Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child’s course of conduct on religion or conscience. Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds.[12] The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child [321 U. S. 167] to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. People v. Pierson, 176 N.Y. 201, 68 N.E. 243.[13] The catalogue need not be lengthened. It is sufficient to show what indeed appellant hardly disputes, that the state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare, and that this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction.);https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/158/case.html
I would suggest that it does NOT give them: “liberty to expose the community or the child [321 U. S. 167] to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.” either!