Important Article on Proposal for So-Called “Health Freedom” Legislation

Once again, the invaluable Science Based Medicine blog has news of an alarming trend in state legislatures. This time, in an article by Florida attorney Jann Bellamy, the subject is so-called “Health Freedom” legislation proposed by a group called National Health Freedom Action. If enacted, the statutes would make it effectively impossible for states to enforce any mandatory public health measures, even during epidemics and pandemics. Here is the gist:

An organization calling itself “National Health Freedom Action” (NHFA) is promoting state legislation that would block public health measures designed to prevent the spread of communicable diseases like COVID-19. If enacted, the legislation would prevent both government and private businesses from instituting public health measures, like mask requirements and social distancing, by making compliance with those measures voluntary.

The “Right to Refuse” model act gives all individuals the “right” to refuse health-related “countermeasures” including, “but not limited to”, refusing

1. 1. medical treatments or procedures;
   2. testing;
   3. physical or mental examination;
   4. vaccination;
   5. experimental procedures and protocols;
   6. collection of specimens;
   7. participation in tracking or tracing programs;
   8. the wearing of masks;
   9. the maintaining of measured distance from other humans and animals that is not otherwise unlawful;
   10. the involuntary sharing of personal data or medical information; and
   11. other recommended or mandated countermeasures.

All existing laws, regulations, and orders addressing outbreaks or potential outbreaks of contagious, infectious, or communicable diseases, to the extent they impose the disease countermeasures listed above, are overridden. More broadly, if a law, regulation, or order was created in response to an emergency, whether it relates to disease spread or not, including national security emergencies and “any peacetime emergency”, provisions conflicting with the “Right to Refuse” are also overridden.

The article also includes information on NHFA supported “’Quack Protection Acts’ passed in 11 states.”

You can read the entire post here.

Comments

[anon]

RE: a-f and j: already established, per SCOTUS. On these, and most of the others, the only issue is whether the gov't has a compelling interest to overcome this basic right to personal autonomy, privacy and choice, whether the measure is the least restrictive way to reach that interest, and whether there is no less onerous alternative. Scholars like Lubet don't seem to see ANY issue.

Under the strict scrutiny standard, most, if not all of the current overreach would fail. The "science" supporting most of these measures has been so unsteady, so disjointed, so unfairly and unevenly applied and self contradictory that it couldn't pass the test.

What is so incredible is that "liberals" like Lubet don't speak out against all this government overreach.

Putting the entire population under endless house arrest (yes, house arrest allows one to buy groceries and go to and from work, so this IS house arrest for those convicted of no crime), allowing government "agents" (often untrained, new hires) to surveille and interrogate citizens' every contact and entering this information into data bases, arresting some, like church goers, for "congregating" but allowing others to protest, loot and riot without ANY consequences, seems to be what Lubet and his ilk like to call the operation of a "free country."

These folks can't understand the reason that so many Americans reject their world view. THey also can't seem to understand that many, like Lubet, likely would, back in his younger days, have found these measures to be overbearing and fascistic.

[anon]

Check out what's happening in NYC.

The government is using the threat of renewed shut downs and crack downs of various sorts to bully isolated areas that support the Donald. Needless to say, the government claims that support of the Donald results in non compliance with their onerous orders, justifying even more harsh tactics to "deal" with the offenders.

Sure it does. Only in those areas can non compliance be found, right?

THis is all so Orwellian.