The claims made by the plaintiffs are difficult to take seriously. One is that fetal tissue from abortions is used in the vaccine, and that this somehow makes the vaccine recipient a collaborator in abortion. But the moral connection between the specific acts of abortion in question and the research and development of the COVID vaccines is so tenuous that even the Vatican’s doctrinal office has judged the use of the vaccines “morally licit” and Pope Francis, a staunch opponent of abortion, has encouraged Roman Catholics to take the vaccine.

Other claims are even more farfetched. One plaintiff claimed to have received direct divine instruction not to receive the vaccine. Another claim was that the mRNA vaccines altered the divine creation of the body by unnaturally introducing the production of spike proteins.

How can these claims be accepted as a basis for exemption from a health-related requirement applicable to all uniformed personnel? The answer seems to be that it is sufficient that the claim be asserted, since the courts may play no role in determining whether the claim is sincere. But American law has long recognized conscientious objection as a basis for exemption from the draft (when we had one) and continues to do so for military personnel who become conscientious objectors after entering active duty. And in both contexts the individual’s sincerity is accepted as a legitimate subject for inquiry.