Eric Schmitt @Eric_Schmitt
[….] Breaking: Congrats to the citizens of Jackson County Missouri! I appreciate the Jackson County legislature heeding my warning and following the law by rejecting an illegal mask mandate today. We The People are fighting back. Freedom is winning. #NoMaskMandates 11:17 AM · Dec 13, 2021
What an asshole.
Some of the responses:
Freedom to lower the Republican voter count in Missouri by encouraging the spread of Covid is an interesting campaign stance.
I am confused yet again by you. Do you believe in local entities setting laws for their citizens or your powerful arm determining what people can and cant do? I thought you stood for local choices. Oh wait, not if they don’t agree with your wants.
Wait. #freedom = siding with #Covid = being a #Bully while using #Missouri taxpayer dollars?
Who knew that a piece of fabric on the face would be such a huge deal…it’s like you want ppl to get sick…do you personally go maskless? Have you personally gotten vaccinated? If so, your telling ppl not too? Seems hypocritical to me
Wearing a mask or not does not constitute freedom. Y’all want to be victims so bad. Luckily most people and retailers in Jackson County still mask up.
How much did you sell your soul for Eric?
Covid is winning.
“heeding your warning” not exactly the verbiage we would expect a professional state official to make. Sounds a lot like a “threat” made by a “bully” was taken. You don’t run the state Eric and the sooner you learn that the better off we will all be.
“heeding my warning”
This guy is just a bully.
2 week MO Covid count up almost 100%. Are you deaf and dumb or just dumb.
[….]
How are we 2 years in and folks don’t understand how masks work? Y’all are so willfully ignorant you’ll kill your kids teacher. Disgusting.
#FuckingSchmitthead
You literally have no constitutional authority in this situation, so all of this is shameless grandstanding for ignorant people who don’t know any better. You, however, do know better. It’s embarrassing the office you hold.
Sick and tired of you imposing your political views over our health! So sad that most Republicans could care less about people and only concerned with their personal elections.
You are fighting to make sure more people get sick and die. Masks have been scientifically proven to reduce virus spread. Your policies are anti-science, pro-virus and pro-death. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[….]
You are an embarrassment. Not sure of your motives, but declaring sound public health measures that prevent Covid spread illegal is causing harm and risking lives.
Chuck Hatfield @chuckhatfield
Random thought: Missouri law (167.191 RSMo) specifically allows school boards, and even teachers, to order children examined by a physician and/or to send them home (quarantine) if they are liable to transmit an infectious disease. 12:21 PM · Dec 7, 2021
RSMo § 167.191. Children with contagious diseases not to attend school — penalty. — It is unlawful for any child to attend any of the public schools of this state while afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease, or while liable to transmit such disease after having been exposed to it. For the purpose of determining the diseased condition, or the liability of transmitting the disease, the teacher or board of directors may require any child to be examined by a physician, and exclude the child from school so long as there is any liability of such disease being transmitted by the pupil. If the parent or guardian refuses to have an examination made by a physician at the request of the teacher or board of directors, the teacher or board of directors may exclude the child from school. Any parent or guardian who persists in sending a child to school, after having been examined as provided by this section, and found to be afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease, or liable to transmit the disease, or refuses to have the child examined as herein provided, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five nor more than one hundred dollars.
Bill prefiling for the Missouri General Assembly session started on December 1st.
Yet another host of bills, addressing a matter of great urgency for right wingnuts – the perpetuation of a deadly pandemic:
HB 1543Prohibits places of public accommodation from requiring vaccination against COVID-19 in order to access services
Sponsor: McGirl, Mike (118)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3267H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1543
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE MCGIRL.
3267H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 191, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to disclosure of
COVID-19 vaccination status.
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 191.720, to read as follows:
191.720. 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) “Place of public accommodation”, a business offering or holding out to the general public goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, or accommodations for the peace, comfort, health, welfare, and safety of the general public or such public places providing food, shelter, recreation, or amusement.
2. A place of public accommodation shall not require a customer, patron, client, or other individual who is an invitee onto the premises of the place of public accommodation to present documentation disclosing his or her COVID-19 vaccination status or make any statement disclosing his or her COVID-19 vaccination status in order to gain access to or receive a service from the place of public accommodation.
3. An individual who is denied access to or receipt of a service from a place of public accommodation in violation of this section may bring a civil action in circuit court against any person who violates the provisions of this section and obtain one or more of the following remedies:
(1) An injunction against any further violations;
(2) Appropriate affirmative relief;
(3) An order directing that the individual be allowed entrance into the place of public accommodation; and
(4) Any other relief necessary to ensure compliance with this section.
4. The court may award reasonable costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party in an action brought under this section.
“… A place of public accommodation shall not require a customer, patron, client, or other individual who is an invitee onto the premises of the place of public accommodation to present documentation disclosing his or her COVID-19 vaccination status or make any statement disclosing his or her COVID-19 vaccination status in order to gain access to or receive a service from the place of public accommodation….”
Enabling superspreader events in a pandemic. That’ll work, eh?
HB 1544
Prohibits employers from requiring their employees to receive a vaccination against COVID-19
Sponsor: McGirl, Mike (118)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3266H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1544
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE MCGIRL.
3266H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 292, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to COVID-19
vaccination.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 292, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 292.645, to read as follows:
292.645. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Employee”, any person performing work or service of any kind or character for an employer;
(2) “Employer”, any:
(a) Individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or any other entity that is legally doing business in this state; or
(b) Department, agency, or instrumentality of the state or any political subdivision of the state;
(3) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village.
2. An employer shall not require an employee or prospective employee to undergo or prove receipt of a vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition ofemployment or continued employment.
3. An employee or prospective employee may bring a civil action in circuit court against an employer who violates the provisions of this section for such relief, including injunctive relief, as may be appropriate.
HB 1624
Creates provisions relating to COVID-19 tests and vaccinations
Sponsor: Schroer, Nick (107)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 4220H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1624
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SCHROER.
4220H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapters 191 and 537, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to
COVID-19 vaccination.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapters 191 and 537, RSMo, are amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 191.635 and 537.1415, to read as follows:
191.635. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Contractor”, any person contracted by an employer to perform work or service of any kind or character for the employer;
(2) “COVID-19 testing”, testing performed to detect infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2;
(3) “COVID-19 vaccination status”, an indication of whether a person has received a vaccination against COVID-19;
(4) “Employee”, any person performing work or service of any kind or character for an employer;
(5) “Employer”, any
(a) Individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or any other entity that is legally doing business in this state; or
(b) Government entity;
(6) “Government entity”:
(a) Any agency or instrumentality of the state government; or
(b) Any political subdivision or agency or instrumentality thereof;
(7) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village.
2. An employer or government entity shall not require weekly COVID-19 testing for employees, contractors, or students who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 if the employer or government entity does not require employees, contractors, or students who are vaccinated against COVID-19 to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing.
3. (1) An employer or government entity may require all employees, contractors, or students to undergo periodic COVID-19 testing at any interval as long as the employer or government entity does not consider COVID-19 vaccination status to determine whether to grant any exemptions to the testing requirement or vary the interval of the testing.
(2) Any employer or government entity that requires COVID-19 testing as described in subdivision (1) of this subsection shall pay all costs for such testing.
537.1415. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Contractor”, any person contracted by an employer to perform work or service of any kind or character for the employer;
(2) “Employee”, any person performing work or service of any kind or character for an employer;
(3) “Employer”, any:
(a) Individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or any other entity that is legally doing business in this state; or
(b) Government entity;
(4) “Government entity”:
(a) Any agency or instrumentality of the state government; or
(b) Any political subdivision or agency or instrumentality thereof;
(5) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village.
2. Any employer or government entity that requires its employees, contractors, or students to undergo or prove receipt of a vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition of employment for an employee, as a condition of the contract for a contractor, or as a condition of educational opportunities for a student shall be liable to such employees, contractors, or students for damages or physical, mental, or emotional injury arising from the required vaccination.
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this section may be commenced at any time.
HB 1670
Creates provisions relating to the COVID-19 vaccines
Sponsor: Seitz, Brian (156)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3647H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1670
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SEITZ.
3647H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 192, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to COVID-19
vaccination.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 192, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 192.026, to read as follows:
192.026. 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”:
(a) Any agency or instrumentality of the state government; or
(b) Any political subdivision or agency or instrumentality thereof;
(3) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village;
(4) “Vaccine passport”, any standardized documentation of vaccination against COVID-19.
2. No government entity shall 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.
3. No government entity shall do business with any entity that requires any of its employees or any other individuals to undergo vaccination against COVID-19 or prove receipt of a vaccination against COVID-19 through the submission of a vaccine passport.
4. If an entity with an existing written or implied contract, including any employment contract, with a government entity implements any new requirement for any of its employees or any other individuals to undergo vaccination against COVID-19 or prove receipt of a vaccination against COVID-19 through the submission of a vaccine passport, the entity shall be barred from doing any further business with any government entity, and any such existing contract with contrary terms shall be null and void as a matter of public policy.
“…vaccine passport…” Seriously? Grow up.
HB 1686
Creates provisions relating to the right to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine and medical treatment
Sponsor: Hardwick, Bill (122)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3452H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1686
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE HARDWICK.
3452H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapters 191 and 292, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to
refusal of medical procedures or treatment.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapters 191 and 292, RSMo, are amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 191.230 and 292.648, to read as follows:
191.230. 1. No public body as defined in section 290.210, political subdivision, public school district, public institution of higher education, state department or agency, public official, peace officer, or any person appointed by the governor acting in an official and public capacity under such appointment shall:
(1) Require any person to receive a COVID-19 vaccination; or
(2) Condition any action, benefit, consequence, service, employment, enrollment, or any other thing of value on whether a person has received a COVID-19 vaccination.
2. Any order issued by a body or official described in subsection 1 of this section that violates the provisions of this section shall be void and unenforceable.
292.648. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Employer”, the same meaning given to the term in section 213.010;
(2) “Medical treatment”, any drug, medicine, synthetic substance, or therapy, whether therapeutic or preventive, that is fully approved or granted an emergency use authorization by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or pending approval by the FDA or that would require approval from the FDA to be sold or prescribed to the general public.
2. An employee shall be exempt from an employer’s requirement to receive medical treatment as a condition of employment and shall not be subject to adverse action by the employer, including loss of pay or termination of employment, for declining to receive the medical treatment if:
(1) The employee claims a religious or conscientious objection to the required medical treatment in a written document submitted to the employer;
(2) The employee has received a recommendation from a licensed physician based on the employee’s unique and individual medical situation advising the employee not to receive the required medical treatment on the basis that the medical treatment is medically unnecessary, likely to be harmful to the employee, or is not in the best medical interest of the employee for other specified reasons; or
(3) An alternative to the required medical treatment is available that would be sufficient to ensure the reasonable safety of other employees and any customers with whom the employee interacts.
HB 1768
Prohibits discrimination in employment based on COVID-19 vaccination status
Sponsor: Lewis, Ed (006)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3736H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1768
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS (6).
3736H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 292, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to COVID-19
vaccination status.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 292, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 292.649, to read as follows:
292.649. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “COVID-19”, the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus;
(2) “COVID-19 vaccination status”, an indication of whether a person has received a vaccination against COVID-19;
(3) “Employee”, any person performing work or service of any kind or character for an employer;
(4) “Employer”, any:
(a) Individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or any other entity that is legally doing business in this state; or
(b) Department, agency, or instrumentality of the state or any political subdivision of the state;
(5) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village.
2. An employer shall not discriminate against an employee in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment based on the employee’s COVID-19 vaccination status.
If bad legislation was a cure we’d be okay. It isn’t and we aren’t.
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
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…”
WARRENSBURG, Mo. (July 1, 2020) – Johnson County has had a recent surge in confirmed positive COVID-19 cases. This has prompted Johnson County Community Health Services (JCCHS) to implement a face covering mandate. This order goes into effect beginning 12 a.m. on Monday, July 6, 2020.
The countywide order will continue for 21 days, expiring 12 a.m. on Tuesday, July 28. This timeline can be rescinded or extended as necessary.
The order requires individuals to wear a face covering in any indoor public location including but not limited to retail stores, grocery stores, offices, places of worship and restaurants/bars. Businesses can supply face coverings if they have the ability to provide them, but can require individuals to bring their own.
In addition, face coverings are required in outdoor public gathering places when social distancing is not an option.
As of June 30, 2020, Johnson County experienced a 32.8 percent increase of confirmed cases over a ten day period.
“The health, safety and wellness for our communities are our biggest priorities. The recent spike in numbers has caused us to implement additional safety precautions to help slow the spread of COVID-19,” said Mary Thaut, JCCHS administrator. “We understand that wearing a face covering is not the most comfortable, but this is a necessary step to help keep our communities safe.
“We also understand the importance to our economy by keeping local businesses open. We want our community members to continue staying active. Requiring face coverings temporarily is an additional tool that each person can use to help protect each other. However, this should not replace other precautions such as social distancing.”
The need for face coverings is based on the percentage of those who are unaware they have COVID-19.
Research shows that 25 to 80 percent of individuals are asymptomatic. They do not know they are carrying the active virus. This allows the coronavirus to spread more rapidly, making it more important to wear a face covering to protect those around them.
[….]
Gee, right after the holiday weekend. What could possibly go wrong before then?
Jason Kander @JasonKander
The President trying to prevent the stock market from contracting coronavirus is the natural extension of believing corporations are people. 6:56 PM · Feb 24, 2020
The people haven’t been doing so well for the past two days.
Major averages slid on Tuesday, accelerating Monday’s sharp losses. The Dow fell 879 points, or 3.15%, the S&P 500 dropped 3.03% and the Nasdaq fell 2.77%. The U.S. 10-year treasury yield fell to its lowest level on record as the growing number of coronavirus cases outside of China continued to roil the markets, and investors[.]
Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…
–Microcephalic babies suffer mild to severe development impairment, potentially affecting intellectual capacity, motor skills and nervous systems.
–Republican congressmen are unwilling to act on the President’s request for supplemental emergency funds to ameliorate the impact of the Zika virus in the U.S.
–Republicans prefer to quibble about what the money is to be used for, if they can steal money allocated for other emergencies for Zika, or if it is even appropriate for congress to address health disasters. .
What does this mean for us? We’re on the verge of prime mosquito season, a potentially catastrophic mosquito borne virus is rapidly moving north, and our legislators, whom we expect to have our backs, are twiddling their thumbs.
It gets even worse. GOPers fretted about what they termed a potential “slush-fund” in President Obama’s emergency funding request, which they believed to be hidden in monies that could be redirected so that health agencies could ostensibly have the flexibility necessary to deal with unforeseen events. One big GOP bogeyman was the conviction that “the money could go on abortions for infected women.”
And Bingo! Just like that we’re on the latest front of the war on a woman’s right to choose. Before we were even wrestling with the specter of Zika, Republican anti-abortion zealots were trying to make it illegal to abort a fetal child suffering from birth defects. Here in Missouri Sen. David Sater (R-29) introduced a bill, SB 802, that, had it been enacted, would have made abortions based on prenatal screening illegal. Missouri is not alone in pursuing this restrictive strategy:
… .North Dakota has outlawed abortions based on prenatal diagnosis of mental disabilities, and Arizona has banned abortions based on the race or sex of the child. At least four other states have legislation pending against abortions after a Down syndrome diagnosis, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research center that supports abortion rights.
The irony, of course, is that the more pregnant women who contract Zika owing to the failure to fund a public health response, the greater the pressure to make abortions more easily available. Same goes for contraception – the access to which has been seriously curtailed by the GOP war on Planned Parenthood.
So there you have it. Thanks to our tight-fisted and addlepated Republican lawmakers, more American women will run the risk of contracting Zika and giving birth to a child suffering from microcephaly. Meanwhile, many of the same lawmakers who can’t be bothered to fund a public health emergency are busy trying to insure that those very Zika-infected women will have no ability to chose whether or not to accept the challenge of a child with birth defects.
