HELENA — Montana’s ongoing debate over prohibiting vaccination requirements took several twists Wednesday after Gov. Greg Gianforte sent House Bill 702 back to the Legislature with proposed changes of his own. Hours later, the House voted 65-35 to accept those changes. The Senate approved the amended bill Thursday on a party-line vote.
The amendment submitted by Gianforte appears to address a number of concerns expressed this week about the bill’s potential impacts on health care facilities. Specifically, Gianforte’s changes would allow such facilities to ask employees to volunteer information about their vaccination status, to consider employees who don’t volunteer that information to be unvaccinated, and to implement policies specific to unvaccinated staff, patients and visitors that are designed to protect against the spread of communicable diseases. The amendment would also exempt nursing homes and assisted-living and long-term care facilities that would risk violating federal guidelines or regulations by complying with the provisions of HB 702.
“Ultimately, the decision to receive a vaccine is voluntary, and Montanans should not face the threat of discrimination rooted in whether they decide to receive a vaccine,” Gianforte wrote in a letter accompanying his amendment. “Furthermore, employers must not discriminate or take punitive action against employees who opt out of immunizations, but instead should work to provide well established, reasonable accommodations that protect the health and safety of all involved.”
Members of the House debated the amendment Wednesday evening, with lawmakers still deeply divided. Rep. Ed Buttrey, R-Great Falls, said he would continue to support HB 702, albeit reluctantly, indicating that he still has several concerns related to the health and safety of vulnerable patients in Montana’s health care facilities. Buttrey added that the amendment’s provision about protocols for unvaccinated hospital employees reads like “a trial lawyer’s dream” and suggested that the bill will likely result in litigation.
“While I feel I have valid concerns, we’re being assured by those crafting the governor’s amendment that this change will serve to protect our hospitals, workers, patients and public,” Buttrey said.
HB 702’s sponsor, Rep. Jennifer Carlson, R-Manhattan, told colleagues that Gianforte’s changes successfully addressed concerns while adhering to the spirit of the bill.
“There has been some angst about this bill and we wish to alleviate that,” Carlson said. “I appreciate the governor’s ongoing support for this legislation and his efforts to ensure that this amendment does not fundamentally alter or change the intent of the bill but rather addresses concerns of the stakeholders.”
Lawmakers did amend HB 702 earlier this month to maintain existing vaccination requirements and exemptions for K-12 public schools and childcare settings.
Gianforte’s amendment arose partly from a discussion earlier this week between his office, several lawmakers, and Cherie Taylor, CEO of Northern Rockies Medical Center in Cut Bank. That conversation, which was mentioned Monday by Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, during the House’s deliberations on the bill, resulted in the governor’s office assuring lawmakers the measure would have no adverse impacts on hospitals and other health care facilities. That assurance proved critical in securing yes votes from several House lawmakers, including Jones.
Montana Free Press spoke with Taylor by phone Wednesday morning about her conversation with Carlson, Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras and others. Taylor characterized the officials as “very receptive” to her concerns about lifting staff vaccination requirements, and said they “assured me that the bill would not impact our hospital’s current practices surrounding vaccination requirements and verification.”
“What was relayed to me was that this bill was not hampering a facility’s ability to verify immunizations and what [staff] have [been immunized],” Taylor said. “What the bill was going after is that individuals could not be fired for such status and that we would still have the ability to, if they needed to be masked based on their vaccination status, that would be completely reasonable.”
Taylor added that she remained concerned even after HB 702’s passage by the Legislature Monday that the bill would conflict with federal regulations set down by various entities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Rich Rasmussen, president and CEO of the Montana Hospital Association, told MTFP that CMS had proposed a new rule on Tuesday to require all hospitals nationwide to report staff vaccination rates. Absent Gianforte’s amendment, HB 702 could have hamstrung Montana hospitals’ ability to comply with such rules.
Taylor voiced additional concerns about the liability implications for health care facilities under HB 702. The pandemic has resulted in at least two lawsuits against nursing homes alleging wrongful deaths of elderly residents. With HB 702 prohibiting vaccination requirements not just against COVID-19 but a host of communicable diseases, including measles, chicken pox and influenza, Taylor questioned whether such facilities would be legally vulnerable in situations where a patient contracts a disease. Rasmussen echoed that concern.
“We know that in Montana we struggle with whooping cough,” Rasmussen said. “That is one of the vaccines that we require our employees to have. That is a highly contagious disease. It is one which, for certain populations, can be very debilitating. But we don’t have our employees in our facilities spreading that. And now you have a bill that would essentially tie our hands on requiring those vaccinations.”
/capitol
The issue hasn’t been raised only by hospital leaders. Rasmussen received a letter this week from Joseph Schimenti, president of Yellowstone Insurance Exchange, which provides liability coverage and risk management services to critical access hospitals in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. In it, Schimenti voiced the group’s opposition to the pre-Gianforte-amended version of HB 702, stating that it “places our member hospital employees, patients and visitors at risk” and will “create a difficult litigation environment for all parties involved.”
“HB 702 goes way beyond COVID-19 and needs to be fixed by the Legislature or hospitals will be forced to operate in a pandemic-response posture instead,” Schimenti said. “It is our recommendation that HB 702 be limited to COVID-19 only and not create a compliance nightmare with respect to vaccine verifications and federal guidance for health care facilities.”
Also on Rasmussen’s list of concerns is how HB 702 will impact recruitment in Montana’s health care industry. The state has already been grappling with workforce shortages for years. Rasmussen said uncertainty over the vaccination status of colleagues could be enough to make potential hires think twice about accepting positions in Montana. He added that the workforce considerations don’t end there.
“The other challenge to this, which would be unfortunate, is that if hospitals had to rely on vaccination verification, they may find themselves utilizing recruiting agencies outside the state of Montana that can verify vaccination status,” Rasmussen said. “So you have a situation where instead of hiring the young nurse graduating out of MSU, we would be hiring the young nurse that’s graduating out of the University of Colorado. Why? Because we can verify their vaccination status.”
In light of Gianforte’s amendment, Rasmussen said, MHA’s legal counsel is continuing to analyze how HB 702 will impact Montana hospitals and how hospitals can balance the bill’s provisions with federal regulations.
“That’s what we’ll be sharing back to our lawmakers and to the executive in the state,” he said, “that here are the legal minds’ feelings about how we can appropriately, effectively and legally work within the guidelines of 702.”
https://montanafreepress.org/2021/04/28/vaccine-requirement-ban-passes-montana-house/
Article 2 and 3 Missouri
St. Joseph area delegates went in different directions on a narrow rejection vote Wednesday of a measure meant to enable refusal of childhood vaccines.
Under current law, before a child attends public school in Missouri, it is usually required to obtain injections such as the mumps, measles and rubella two-dose program. All COVID-19 vaccines are not part of this debate, as they are not yet authorized for children. For the MMR vaccine, families can refuse, but are required to go through a process in which they cite religious beliefs, or the advice of a medical provider. Rep. Suzie Pollock, a Republican of Lebanon, Missouri, proposed HB 37 to expand these exemptions. She amended HB 37 into a larger bill, before the House voted that down 67-79. In opposition were Reps. Bill Falkner and Brenda Shields of St. Joseph. Those in favor included Reps. Randy Railsback of Hamilton, Dean VanSchoiack of Savannah, and J. Eggleston of Maysvile. The five delegates are all Republicans.
"I think it's really important for every child who's able to be vaccinated to be vaccinated, so we can support the rest of our community and keep kids healthy, and in school," said Dr. Thuylinh Pham.
Pham, a pediatrician and Missouri legislative chair for the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the MMR vaccine doesn't always immunize a patient; she herself had to receive four rounds of MMR vaccine before tests showed she had developed immunity. For this reason, it is advised for as many to get the vaccine as possible, so as to shield those who cannot or did not get immunized for some reason. This is the concept of "herd immunity."
Falkner, who represents the heart of St. Joseph, said the main reason for his "no" vote is the common practice of taking unrelated, "controversial" ideas and folding them into omnibus legislation, so as to make the new ideas easier to pass. The outcome, intended or not, is to bog down mainstream bills most people will support with detritus that could sink the entire bill. Therefore a "no" vote is needed to strip them back out.
"It's better that they stand by themselves, and fall by themselves," Falkner said.
The underlying cause — parental choice for their own children's medical needs — is one Falkner said he agrees with. However, any possible support for this idea would require further consultations with public education leaders.
"You have to put yourself in the shoes of those in public education who are trying to protect our kids," he said.
Railsback, who represents Clinton County and his own Caldwell County, said he personally believes public officials have a duty to promote vaccination as much as possible, but it needs to be implemented through persuasion and public education.
"Most of the time, if people look at this objectively, learn the facts, they're going to decide the right thing to do is get vaccinated," he said. "But if we say, right off the bat, 'You have to,' then the reaction by some people is, 'You can't make me.' And we go right past their ability to be educated and persuaded."
A push to provide greater oversight over local health orders and ban vaccine passports was renewed this week when the Missouri Senate tacked both proposals onto a sprawling bill on local government issues.
House Bill 271 swelled from just three pages when it was originally introduced to 101 on Tuesday afternoon, after nearly 30 amendments were added on the Senate floor. Sponsored by House Speaker Pro Tem John Wiemann, R-O'Fallon, the bill was originally intended to establish a database to track local government expenditures.
The bill was passed out of the Senate on Wednesday morning with an emergency clause by a vote of 25 in favor to six against. It now heads back to the House, which can sign off on the Senate's version and send it to the governor or ask for a conference committee to work out a compromise.
More than a year into the novel coronavirus' spread, curbing local health departments' authority and banning vaccine passports have become flashpoints for lawmakers across the country.
Sen. Bob Onder, R-Lake St. Louis, on Tuesday offered an amendment that was essentially a scaled down version of Senate Bill 12, which had failed to gain initial approval after nearly eight hours of debate in late March.
The proposal adopted Tuesday would cap restrictions issued during a state of emergency at 30 days in a 180-day period. Extensions for an additional 30 days could be approved by a simple majority vote of the local health authority's governing body after a report is provided outlining the need for such an extension.
Under the bill, if health orders are issued outside of a state of emergency, they would be limited to 21 days in a 180-day period and require a two-thirds majority vote to be extended. Local governing bodies would also have the authority to terminate any health order by a simple majority vote. Local public health departments under multiple counties would require approval from the governing body in each county.
Senate Bill 12 had previously restricted health orders to a period of 15 days and only permitted their extension for an additional cumulative total of 30 days.
"This particular amendment embodies a compromise that I think most everyone would agree with," Onder said on the Senate floor Tuesday, "which is, that in our Democratic republic, there should always be accountability, ultimately to the people through their elected officials."
Supporters have said such bills would return oversight to elected local governing boards, therefore ensuring residents have a say in health orders. Meanwhile, opponents have warned severe restrictions may hamper health officials' ability to quickly respond in future pandemics.
A similar proposal sponsored by Rep. Jim Murphy, R-St. Louis, passed out of a Senate committee late last month and awaits debate before the Senate. In a letter to Gov. Mike Parson on Tuesday, Murphy and nearly 80 lawmakers urged Parson to lift any remaining health restrictions, noting states like Texas have lifted mask mandates and occupancy limits on businesses.
Amid the pandemic, Gov. Greg Abbott's statewide executive orders in Texas usurped local officials' and often prohibited them from issuing restrictions stricter than those at a state level.
"We hope that our legislation will cross the finish line to your desk but with the uncertainty of the legislative process we feel it is time that immediate action be taken," the letter read. "We ask that you as the leader of this state give our citizens their freedoms back by removing the remaining restrictions imposed on them."
While Parson extended Missouri's state of emergency through Aug. 31, 2021, which kept certain waivers to respond to the pandemic in place, Missouri is not under statewide restrictions, like a mask mandate.
Parson declared Missouri "fully open for business" in mid-June and let the state's social distancing order, which included limits on large gatherings and capacity for some businesses, expire. Over the course of the pandemic, Parson has left such decisions largely in the hands of local officials.
Under another provision of House Bill 271, local jurisdictions would be prohibited from requiring residents provide proof of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in order to access transportation or public accommodations.
"I believe that any public entity should not be doing that," said Sen. Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove, who amended the language onto the bill Tuesday.
Onder added a provision to limit Moon's amendment to apply only to proof of COVID-19 vaccinations, noting more narrowly tailored language would likely have better chances of surviving the House and conference committee process, where the House and Senate work to come to a compromise on a bill's language.
Moon also originally offered an amendment that would only apply to counties, cities, towns or villages, but later added in "receiving public funds."
The provision had raised concerns for Democratic Sens. John Rizzo, of Independence, and Jill Schupp, of Creve Coeur, who worried it may apply to hotels that have received tax credits or the airline industry that's received federal aid.
"Private businesses should be able to dictate what they do and don't do. If they're taking public funds though, they may be in another category, and I think they probably are," Moon said, later adding: "But if you're a government entity, I think that's what this is primarily aimed toward."
Similar provisions banning vaccine passports are also moving through the process, with a Senate bill barring them to access transportation and a House bill that would go further and extend that ban to private businesses and government entities.
Parson has said that while he would not mandate vaccine passports at a state level, he would be fine with them being used in the private sector.
The Missouri Independent is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization covering state government and its impact on Missourians.
Article 4 Connecticut
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — Those in opposition to a new law in Connecticut repealing the religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations announced Wednesday they plan to challenge the bill they’re calling “unconstitutional”.
Attorney Norm Pattis says lawsuits will be filed Thursday morning in both state and federal court. He added that the passage has nothing to do with public health, but rather it infringes on the religious rights of Connecticut families.
For years, there have been two reasons a child could go to school without the required vaccinations for things like measles and whooping cough.
Those were medical, kids who cannot tolerate the vaccine, and religious, parents who said their religions did not allow vaccinations.
The trouble is, more people claimed that religious exemption in the years since a false study claimed there was a link between vaccines and autism. Even though that has been debunked, some parents still object to vaccines, and now they are taking that objection to court.
The repeal of the religious exemption passed largely along party lines in both the House and the Senate; protests were seen at the Capitol Tuesday in response. At the governor’s mansion Wednesday evening, protesters gathered, angry after Governor Ned Lamont signed the bill into law earlier in the day.
Attorney Kevin Barry says there are three important rights at stake here.
“Public health is undoubtedly an important interest, so is religious freedom and so is right to education,” said Barry.
Wednesday, the two opposing groups known as We the Patriots and Connecticut Freedom Alliance said they plan to file litigation to overturn the decision saying there is no justification for the state to essentially shut the doors of Connecticut schools to families with religious exemptions.
Pattis, who is representing the groups, joined to say that this lawsuit will strike at the heart of a parent’s fundamental right to raise their children and that Governor Lamont and the state lawmakers that voted in favor of the bill will see the extent to which families are willing to go to protect their rights.
“This lawsuit will strike at the heart of claims that there can ever be a public health emergency such that fundamental rights to raise your children become the power of the state,” Pattis said.
Brian Festa, co-founder of Connecticut Freedom Alliance and We the Patriots USA pointed fingers at the state capitol Wednesday saying what happened was unconstitutional.
“It is our contention that what happened in the Capitol building last week, last night, and today when this was passed into law was beyond any doubt illegal and unconstitutional,” Festa said.
One parent we spoke with Wednesday says she is nervous for her kids’ future.
Sherry Harmon of Plainfield said, “My two older boys are grandfathered in but my Pre-K daughters are not, and they are special ed. They have IEPs, and that protection is a federal protection, so I wonder how the state and the federal government will afford my daughters’ free and public education.”
Some parents tell News 8 they are not giving up.
Kalee Mead of Parents Against Ban said, “We have children that deserve a right to an education. I pay my property taxes. I pay $6,000 a year in property taxes and my children are having the right to an education taken away from them…We can’t support this.”
Attorney General William Tong fired back in support of the law: “We think the legislature acted properly and lawfully and the legislature and the governor did the right thing…The Office of the Attorney General is ready to defend the legislature, the governor, and this law.”
Gov. Lamont is doubling down. “Everybody sues, but we’ll be okay.”
Attorney Pattis says the lawsuit will be filed Thursday morning.
https://www.wtnh.com/news/politics/illegal-and-unconstitutional-opposition-plans-to-challenge-new-law-repealing-religious-exemption-for-childhood-vaccinations/
Comments
Post a Comment