Read the bill here.
Why I am against the bill:
The statement “IF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS DETERMINE THAT RESIDENTS OF THE STATE ARE NOT DEVELOPING SUFFICIENT IMMUNITY FROM COVID-19” is subject to a wide range of interpretation as to what “sufficient immunity” means in terms of the percentage of the population, neither does it specify how “sufficient immunity” is determined. Is the determination based on the percent of people vaccinated? Is it determined by testing antibody levels for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated but COVID-19 exposed population? It is also questionable as to whether “public health officials” have the training and qualifications to make this determination. This bill also does not take into account lifestyle variances in the population group (for example, health care worker vs. someone working from home), including considerations such as the amount of contact with other people and risk of becoming infected or infecting others.
Furthermore, in the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where in the opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan explained that personal liberties might be suspended in cases where the interest of the “common good” of the community are of paramount importance. By contrast, this bill does not address whether the criteria for determining “the common good” has been met and what that criteria is.
It appears that this bill is in direct violation of prior law and instead attempts to mandate vaccination without evidence of a “common good” and without adequately specifying what “sufficient immunity” means, both in terms of a percentage of the population and by how immunity is determined. Instead, the decision for enforcement, should this bill become law, is arbitrarily determined by a group of people whose credentials stated simply as “public health officials”, is in my opinion, questionable.
Marc Clifton 