• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: anti-vaxxers

HB 1465: Freedumb!

04 Saturday Dec 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Adam Schnelting, anti-vaccine, anti-vaxxers, Corona virus, COVID-19, General Assembly, HB 1465, missouri, pandemic, Public Health, right wingnut

Bill prefiling for the Missouri General Assembly session started on December 1st.

Yet another bill, addressing a matter of great urgency for right wingnuts:

HB 1465
Prohibits certain vaccine mandates
Sponsor: Schnelting, Adam (104)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3629H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1465
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill language:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1465 [pdf]
101ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SCHNELTING.
3629H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 191, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to documentation
of immunity or vaccination against diseases.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 191, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 191.722, to read as follows:

191.722. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “COVID-19 vaccination status”, an indication of whether a person has received a vaccination against COVID-19;
(2) “Government entity”, any agency or instrumentality of the state government or any political subdivision;
(3) “Vaccine passport”, any standardized documentation of vaccination against COVID-19.
2. No entity located in this state shall require documentation of an individual having received a vaccination against any disease in order for the individual to access:
(1) Transportation systems or services including, but not limited to, buses, air travel, rail travel, taxicab or limousine services, and prearranged rides as defined in section 387.400; or
(2) Any public transportation systems, services, or facilities including, but not limited to, bus and airport facilities.
3. No government entity shall be authorized to issue vaccine passports for the purpose of certifying an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination status to a third party or to otherwise publish or share any individual’s COVID-19 vaccination record or similar health information.
4. A business entity located in this state shall not require a patron or customer to provide any documentation certifying vaccination against COVID-19 or immunity against COVID-19 through infection and recovery in order to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business entity.
5. All business entities shall comply with the requirements of this section in order to be eligible for grants or contracts funded through state revenue.
6. The requirements of this section shall not otherwise restrict businesses from instituting COVID-19 screening protocols in accordance with state and federal law in order to protect public health.
7. Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with an individual’s right to access the individual’s own personal health information under federal law.

What’s next?

“….No entity located in this state shall require documentation of an individual having received a vaccination against any disease in order for the individual to access…”

2021-2022 Missouri School Immunization Requirements [pdf]

Forget science. Forget public health. Missouri republicans are leading us all back to the Dark Ages.

They consider that a feature, not a bug.

Who pays the bill?

13 Friday Aug 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Claire McCaskill, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-vaxxers, Claire McCaskill, Corona virus, COVID-19, Department of Health and Senior Services, DHSS, missouri, pandemic, social media, Twitter

From Missouri DHSS:

Last night:

Claire McCaskill @clairecmc
Anti-vax folks say they don’t trust doctors. Where do they go when they get sick?
11:41 PM · Aug 12, 2021

A few of the responses:

Time for a new rule, all eligible people that chose not to get vaccinated don’t qualify for priority medical care. People who drink don’t qualify for transplants so I believe that the standard has already been set.

The vet. If they have a fever they stamp their foot twice.

What I don’t get is they say they don’t trust the government but they also don’t trust the vaccine because it doesn’t have FDA approval. Do they know what FDA stands for?

They’re immune to logic.

To the ERs where they cry and clog up the system. Then the MIs, CVAs, GSW have to compete for care and a bed. Not fair! No Vax? Back of the line. No Vax? You pay the costs of care. No Vax? No bars, restaurants, movies, concerts.

Well, when they get sick with Delta, they should just stay home and deal.with it. It’s only the flu, right? They don’t trust doctors and science. Why should they go to people they don’t trust? Let the hospitals be free to treat heart attacks & accident victims.

They sure don’t trust a lot of people: doctors, scientists, the government, etc…

They trust Facebook more than doctors.

While also talking about how they hate the media and Big Tech. Oh, and that to stop communism, the government should take over traditional media and social media companies. It is almost like they don’t know what they are talking about or something.

Just like the rest of the R’s, they make the mess, expect someone else to clean it up, then complain because the D’s didn’t do it to their satisfaction. [….]

To work. To school. On airplanes. On buses. They spread their sickness across the community and country cause they drank a little sea moss with molasses and ginger. They are fine. [….]

RN here. They call our office begging for advice & asking for all the crazy shit they’ve heard about. When we tell them that’s not an option/no cure they’re stunned. Advice: stay home and go to the hospital only when you’re sick enough to need admission. That & good luck

They also likely get treatments that are still under emergency authorization for that Covid. So that excuse for not getting vaccinated goes out the window.

They beg for monoclonal antibodies which are only authorized under an emergency use authorization because they don’t like the vaccine because it’s authorized under an emergency use authorization.

Spoiler alert: the Emergency Room. I see them. Often. My favorite is when they still don’t believe you after you diagnose them.

They go to the doctor just like everyone else, except currently they filling up the hospitals, you know the ones full of doctors.

Apparently out in public without a mask

And on and on.

115 years ago

07 Monday Dec 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-vaxxers, Corona virus, COVID-19, expertise, Jacobson v Massachusetts, pandemic, Stare decisis, Supreme Court, U.S, vaccination

Stare decisis.

In the U.S. Supreme Court:

[….]
HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err.,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 70.

Argued December 6, 1904.
Decided February 20, 1905.

This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination.

[….]

….Looking at the propositions embodied in the defendant’s rejected offers of proof, it is clear that they are more formidable by their number than by their inherent value. Those offers in the main seem to have had no purpose except to state the general theory of those of the medical profession who attach little or no value to vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of smallpox, or who think that vaccination causes other diseases of the body. What everybody knows the court must know, and therefore the state court judicially knew, as this court knows, that an opposite theory accords with the common belief, and is maintained by high medical authority. We must assume that, when the statute in question was passed, the legislature of Massachusetts was not unaware of these opposing theories, and was compelled, of necessity, to choose between them. It was not compelled to commit a matter involving the public health and safety to the final decision of a court or jury. It is no part of the function of a court or a jury to determine which one of two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease. That was for the legislative department to determine in the light of all the information it had or could obtain. It could not properly abdicate its function to guard the public health and safety. The state legislature proceeded upon the theory which recognized vaccination as at least an effective, if not the best-known, way in which to meet and suppress the evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperiled an entire population. Upon what sound principles as to the relations existing between the different departments of government can the court review this action of the legislature? If there is any such power in the judiciary to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare, it can only be when that which the legislature has done comes within the rule that, if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution….

….The latest case upon the subject of which we are aware is Viemester v. White, decided very recently by the court of appeals of New York. That case involved the validity of a statute excluding from the public schools all children who had not been vacinated. One contention was that the statute and the regulation adopted in exercise of its provisions was inconsistent with the rights, privileges, and liberties of the citizen. The contention was overruled, the court saying, among other things: ‘Smallpox is known of all to be a dangerous and contagious disease. If vaccination strongly tends to prevent the transmission or spread of this disease, it logically follows that children may be refused admission to the public schools until they have been vaccinated. The appellant claims that vaccination does not tend to prevent smallpox, but tends to bring about other diseases, and that it does much harm, with no good. It must be conceded that some laymen, both learned and unlearned, and some physicians of great skill and repute, do not believe that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox. The common belief, however, is that it has a decided tendency to prevent the spread of this fearful disease, and to render it less dangerous to those who contract it. While not accepted by all, it is accepted by the mass of the people, as well as by most members of the medical profession. It has been general in our state, and in most civilized nations for generations. It is generally accepted in theory, and generally applied in practice, both by the voluntary action of the people, and in obedience to the command of law. Nearly every state in the Union has statutes to encourage, or directly or indirectly to require, vaccination; and this is true of most nations of Europe. . . . A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts.. . . The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive; for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In a free country, where the government is by the people, through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action, for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not. Any other basis would conflict with the spirit of the Constitution, and would sanction measures opposed to a Republican form of government. While we do not decide, and cannot decide, that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox, we take judicial notice of the fact that this is the common belief of the people of the state, and, with this fact as a foundation, we hold that the statute in question is a health law, enacted in a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power….’

….We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state. While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty, or property as secured to the individual by the supreme law of the land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the national government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the state, in its wisdom, may take; and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution….

115 years ago.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

HB 711: Worth a shot, eh?

29 Tuesday Jan 2019

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-vaxxers, General Assembly, HB 711, Lynn Morris, missouri, vaccine

In the State of Washington:

Inslee declares local public health emergency after identifying outbreak of measles
January 25, 2019

Gov. Jay Inslee declared a state of emergency today in all counties in response to more than two dozen confirmed cases of measles in our state.

“Measles is a highly contagious infectious disease that can be fatal in small children,” Inslee stated in his proclamation. “The existence of 26 confirmed cases in the state of Washington creates an extreme public health risk that may quickly spread to other counties.”

The proclamation directs state agencies and departments to utilize state resources and do everything reasonably possible to assist affected areas. A proclamation is also necessary to utilize the Emergency Management Assistance Compact to request additional medical resources from other states.

The Washington State Department of Health has instituted an infectious disease Incident Management Structure to manage the public health aspects of the incident to include investigations, laboratory testing and other efforts to protect communities. Meanwhile, the Washington Military Department is coordinating resources to support DOH and local officials in alleviating the impacts to people, property and infrastructure.

[….]

Washington State Officials Declare State Of Emergency As Measles Outbreak Continues
January 28, 20199:36 PM ET

Health officials in Washington have declared a state of emergency and are urging immunization as they scramble to contain a measles outbreak in two counties, while the number of cases of the potentially deadly virus continues to climb in a region with lower-than-normal vaccination rates.

[….]

Measles was declared completely eliminated within the U.S. in 2000 because the country’s widespread vaccination program. However, state laws allowing parents to opt out of mandatory vaccinations quickly began eroding those statistics, leading to outbreaks across the nation.

[….]

Meanwhile, in the Missouri General Assembly Representative Lynn Morris (r) introduced HB 711:

HB 711
Prohibits discrimination against children who are not immunized
Sponsor: Morris, Lynn (140)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 1670H.01I
Last Action: 01/29/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
[….]

Bad timing.

The bill [pdf] includes:

191.260. No child shall be discriminated against by any health care provider because he or she has not been immunized as required due to a proper exemption.

Currently, under RSMo 210.003

[….]
2. A child who has not completed all immunizations appropriate for his or her age may enroll, if:
  (1) Satisfactory evidence is produced that such child has begun the process of immunization. The child may continue to attend as long as the immunization process is being accomplished according to the ACIP/Missouri department of health and senior services recommended schedule;
  (2) The parent or guardian has signed and placed on file with the day care administrator a statement of exemption which may be either of the following:
  (a) A medical exemption, by which a child shall be exempted from the requirements of this section upon certification by a licensed physician that such immunization would seriously endanger the child’s health or life; or
  (b) A parent or guardian exemption, by which a child shall be exempted from the requirements of this section if one parent or guardian files a written objection to immunization with the day care administrator [….]

And:

[….] 6. Nothing in this section shall preclude any political subdivision from adopting more stringent rules regarding the immunization of preschool children. [….]

“…A parent or guardian exemption, by which a child shall be exempted from the requirements of this section if one parent or guardian files a written objection to immunization with the day care administrator…”

The current statute contains a clause that appears to effectively be a personal belief exemption, one other than for religious or medical reasons. Can you see where this bill could be going? It looks like under HB 711 a medical provider won’t be able to drop a patient from their practice because of a parent’s anti-vaxxer beliefs.

That’s working out so well right now in the State of Washington.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Democratic Party News
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Josh Hawley
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 639,706 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...