Mass. Health Bill Would Allow Warrantless Arrests, Quarantines
I took the time to go and read the entire bill on the official Massachusetts website and became truly alarmed. Even though the bill is kicking around in the House of Representatives in Mass., the very fact that such a thing exists is cause for all of us to look at the on-going hysteria over the H1N1 flu, referred to as Swine Flu.
For quite awhile, I've been very uneasy about the constant talk about this flu, and the possibility that this could be another convenient "crisis" the White House would not allow to go to waste.
In an email, Rep. Frank Smizik (D-MA), made these statements in an effort to mitigate the fears of opponents of this bill:
Laws currently exist in Massachusetts (and all other states) which give very broad powers to various officials during a time of emergency. All states have had emergency powers laws for many years, which are crucial during times of emergency to provide for the safety, health, and welfare of residents. These laws have been used responsibly over the last several decades.
S. 2028 provides more specificity and detail to the ways in which emergency powers may be exercised only during a time of emergency.
The bill provides that during a declared public health emergency or state of emergency, warrantless arrest is allowed only when a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated a health order.
This bill does not allow for mandatory vaccinations. Individuals may refuse vaccination, but should not be allowed to infect others if he or she has or may have a condition that poses a serious danger to public health, and therefore may be isolated or quarantined. In this situation, the health of the population temporarily takes precedence over the freedom of the individual. This provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions.
Section 95 (a) of the bill allows the commissioner of DPH to issue an order for entry onto property where there is reasonable cause to believe that a disease or condition dangerous to the public health exists or may exist or that there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of such a disease or condition, and that certain measures are necessary to decrease or eliminate the risk to public health. The order may be a verbal order in exigent circumstances, and shall be followed by a written order as soon as reasonably possible, which shall specify the reasons for the order.
source
Nothing I read in that email made me feel any better. How about you? If we already have laws in place, why do we need "more specific laws", particularly since much of what is being specified looks fairly unconstitutional to me.
Another part of the bill states that:
law-enforcement authorities shall assist medical personnel in the involuntary transportation of people to treatment centers;One of the most effective ways to control people is to limit their movement by placing compulsory restrictions on them, or in the more direct approach of declaring an emergency and locking them up for "the good of society."
to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;
to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area;
The section in the bill concerning quarantines, forced or voluntary, is fairly fuzzy as to how the determination of the necessity of isolation of an individual is to be made. Exempt from the possibility of quarantine is anyone with AID's or who is HIV positive.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is "preparing for the worse" and I'm not even sure what that means. Regular garden-variety flu kills way more folks than the H1N1 ever has. From the research I've done, it appears that the symptoms of H1N1 are milder than regular flu.
The Massachusetts Liberty Preservation Association has a thread on their fine site just for this bill.
Here is the complete bill from the Massachusetts official website:
AN ACT RELATIVE TO PANDEMIC AND DISASTER PREPARATION AND RESPONSE IN THE COMMONWEALTH.
9 comments:
it's a double edged sword.
forget the flu for a minute. These laws are in place not for the flu as that doesn't constitute an emergency. But think about the biological warfare possibility. It never went away even though folks stopped talking about it in the months post 9/11/01. If anthrax were dropped on my small town. and you lived in the next town over....for both your safety and mine there should be some method already established for quarinteening (sp?haha) my town so that a) all available health response resources are focused on ME (the sicko) and b) I don't decide to up and visit Auntie May, your next door neighbor, and thereby unnecessarrily (I can NOT spell at this hour of the monring!!) infect YOU (the pristine).
Focus not on exactly what the details of the emergency action plan are...rather on WHAT the definition of an emergency is and WHO shall declare such a state.
And yes, the laws do need to be in place and specific; if their laws were vague and open to interpretation they are right to tighten them up so that they cannot be abused.
So there's my penny's worth...
MM - EXACTLY! It's the what and the who that are of concern to me plus the fact that they already have laws. Why more?
If you read the bill you will see there is so many loop holes and fuzzy carp that it makes one sit back and wonder.
I'm not wearing a tin foil hat - I just have questions...
No, the question is, What is more dangerous, the flu or the vaccine? ..and why isn't that our CHOICE.
The reason we need more specific laws is that the old laws are too broad. This causes problems in two ways- it makes us less safe by opening things up for abuse (which, it should be noted, hasn't been an issue yet), and it makes the goal of the laws- keeping people safe and healthy- harder to achieve. These laws give clarity to the situation, as (believe it or not) the current situation is worse than this would allow, so this is an improvement.
Massachusetts has invoked these other laws and declared a health emergency three times in the past 50 years (once due to negligence or issues at group of nursing homes, another to deal with a contaminated water source, and the last one due to an outbreak of eastern equine encephalitis).
I'm not saying its not something to be concerned or worried about, and its great to have more people reviewing laws to make sure we don't end up screwed. However, diseases have literally plagues humanity for all of its existence, and could potentially destroy society in ways that terrorists could never pull off, so this is not something we can ignore.
Oh, and this doesn't mandate vaccines either. What it does say is that if you have an infectious disease and refuse treatment then you can't go running around infecting other people and will instead be isolated until you are healthy.
For the first worrier of Anthrax infection... it's not contagious - why quarantine? It doesn't spread from person to person and decontamination (washing / burning clothes) is enough for prevention. It spreads mostly by spores that can last for centuries - quarantining for several days - or for that matter one minute more than it takes to wash - is completely useless.
If the vaccine works - why would others who take the vaccine worry about those who don't?
A few reasons why people who take a vaccine still need to worry about those who don't:
Vaccines can't be administered to people with certain conditions.
Vaccines are never 100% effective. Most are less effective on infants.
Viruses can mutate.
Adrienne, "preparing for the worst" means the opposite of "we are not prepared." So when Sebelius says "We’re preparing for the worst and hoping for the best," it's a good thing. (Or, as good as prepping for a potential pandemic can be.)
I'd rather have specific laws in place than chaos when it happens, and I'd gladly be quarantined to save lives - WWJD, right? Anyone who wants to run around spreading the disease should be arrested.
As a retired Police Chief ......employed both in NYS and then in the Commonwealth of MA...I see approximately sixty-five (65) volations of the Constitution in this Senate # 2028 bill.... Wake up people......This Flu-Scam is about money for the pharm empire....Read your US Bill of Rights.....Amendment 4: No unreasonable searches or seizures......Amendment 8: No excessive bail or fines, no cruel and unusual punishments...The Commonweath in MGL the CMR already has safeguards in place delegated to local authority......
Post a Comment