Proof of routine childhood vaccinations would no longer be required before kids are enrolled in child care, under a bill being considered by New Hampshire lawmakers.
The bill, which passed the New Hampshire House last month, is one of several attempts lawmakers have made to roll back public health measures in recent years.
And yes, I know floating a bill isn't the same as passing one but JFC already.
Republican Rep. Ross Berry of Manchester, one of the sponsors, said the bill is about eliminating a “needless paperwork requirement” that he called burdensome for child care providers. Berry, who runs a child care center, disputed the idea that the bill removes the vaccination requirement itself, as opposed to just the reporting requirements.
But Chan and other officials with the Department of Health and Human Services disagreed. They said that, in their reading, the bill actually does get rid of vaccination requirements for child care enrollment – and even if it didn’t, they argued those requirements would be meaningless without any way of ensuring compliance.
The United Conservative Party's board is urging Premier Danielle Smith to reform COVID vaccine policy because the directors are worried about the safety of mRNA vaccines for kids, the party president says.
"We have serious concerns about them for children," Rob Smith, the UCP president, told CBC News in an interview Friday.
"I would say that the board of directors' position is that if parents are going to get their children vaccinated, they need to be very, very sure that they know what they're doing."
Asked what the change would look like in practice, Rob Smith said it would see AHS "doing a better job of sharing information about the vaccine that they are offering."
He wants AHS to disclose "the science behind the vaccine, and the potential repercussions," as well as the research and the testing methodology behind it.
He said the board has communicated its concerns to the premier, adding "we believe that there will be action coming from the government with respect to AHS's offerings of COVID vaccinations and the ages for which they're recommending."
The party president's comments come as a Calgary wing of the UCP prepares to host a gathering of medical speakers who claim COVID vaccines are dangerous and even deadly, hoping to use that event to help persuade UCP MLAs and Smith to ban mRNA COVID immunizations for children.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Party of small government in North Carolina bans mask use in public for health reasons:
The North Carolina Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to ban anyone from wearing masks in public for health reasons, following an emotional debate about the wisdom of the proposal.
Republican supporters of the ban said it would help police crack down on protesters who wear masks — which some lawmakers called a growing concern, saying demonstrators are abusing Covid-19 pandemic-era norms to wear masks that hide their identities.
Kind of makes me want to get all sorts of airborne diseases and visit.
Coincidentally my son is looking to move there and because of that so is my wife.
Ugh..
I wonder how that would work for him as an EMT...
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 9:26 pm
Party of small government in North Carolina bans mask use in public for health reasons:
The North Carolina Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to ban anyone from wearing masks in public for health reasons, following an emotional debate about the wisdom of the proposal.
Republican supporters of the ban said it would help police crack down on protesters who wear masks — which some lawmakers called a growing concern, saying demonstrators are abusing Covid-19 pandemic-era norms to wear masks that hide their identities.
Isn't that a mask mandate? I thought they were against those.
They're still apparently committee "work-shopping" the law in NC - despite the suggestion that it's been indefinitely tabled. They probably didn't like the national attention they were getting and will just wait to slip it through when people are distracted by something else.
Word on the street is an Alderman from Chicago's 15th ward has proposed the same thing, using nearly the same language as the N.C. bill - to keep people safe from crime.
Buried in the April 2022 ruling that struck down the Biden administration’s mask mandate was a section that was unusual for a court decision.
The outcome itself was far from surprising. Places all over the country were dropping local mask requirements, and the judge hearing this case — a challenge to the federal mandate to mask on planes and other public transportation — was a conservative Trump appointee, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle for the Middle District of Florida. Mizelle ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s mask requirement overstepped the agency’s legal authority.
What was eye-catching was her explanation of why. In her ruling, Mizelle wrote she had consulted the Corpus of Historical American English, an academic search engine that returns examples of how words and phrases are used in select historical texts. Mizelle searched “sanitation,” a crucial word in the 1944 statute that authorizes the CDC to issue disease-prevention rules, and found it generally was used to describe the act of making something clean. “Wearing a mask,” she wrote, “cleans nothing.”
Hmm...searching for historical use of key words for legal purposes?
Searching large linguistic databases is a relatively new approach to judicial analysis called legal corpus linguistics. Although it has gained in popularity over the last decade, it is barely discussed outside of an enthusiastic group of right-wing conservative legal scholars. Which raises the question: How did this niche concept wind up driving such a consequential decision in the country’s health policy?
How indeed.
Just weeks before she issued the ruling, Mizelle had discreetly attended an all-expenses-paid luxury trip from a conservative group whose primary mission is to persuade more federal judges to adopt the use of corpus linguistics. For five days, Mizelle and more than a dozen other federal judges listened to the leading proponents of corpus linguistics in the comfort of The Greenbrier, an ostentatious resort spread out over 11,000 acres of West Virginia hillside.
The newly formed group that picked up the tab, the Judicial Education Institute, received more than $1 million in startup funding from the billionaire libertarian Charles Koch’s network and DonorsTrust, a nonprofit that has funneled millions in anonymous donations to right-wing causes and has been dubbed “the dark money ATM of the conservative movement.”
Wait. So filters aren't used for sanitary purposes and clean nothing? Am I really reading that correctly? You filter blood, you aren't cleaning it? Kidneys, meh. When you filter your oil, you aren't cleaning it? As a proof of concept, she should remove the oil, air, and gas filter from her car and get back to me how clean her engine and it's related parts ends up once she's done this.
You have to understand that overwhelmingly the medical community right now is against masking - despite the knowledge that it helps reduce disease transmission in a clinical setting. Think back to before HIV/AIDS - seeing emergency medical techs put on gloves wasn't common. Apparently COVID-19 still wasn't bad enough and/or the feel/look of wearing a mask at work all day is too much.
But yes, the historical use of "sanitary" from a legal perspective was largely focused on cleanliness. I'm technically a licensed "Sanitarian", though the name was changed in the early 2000s to reflect a more modern approach to the field.
Still playing all of these filters in my head not used for cleaning, like filter in an aquarium or in a water tank or in a vacuum or... air purifier or...
YellowKing wrote:I can't express how much I freaking HATE North Carolina Republicans. They are pure evil.
I feel you there. Just substitute Texas Republicans. In my younger days I leaned Republican before I started paying attention because almost everyone I knew in rural Texas was Republican. I actually started coming around to the Democrats because of then governor Rick Perry. I hate the republican leadership in Texas; pure evil.
Originalism taken to extremes. Someone realized that a significant number of laws were written when America was 'still great', and figured that if they can get enough judges to interpret the law like it's 1950 again, it'll be like 1950 again.
I'm waiting for an article, but apparently the North Carolina legislature has reached some type of compromise on the anti-masking legislation that was proposed. It seems they're allowing people in an active disease state (i.e. you're communicable) to wear masks, but not allowing people to wear masks in public to protect themselves from being exposed. Additionally, they're apparently only allowing cloth or surgical masks - no N95s or half-face respirators.
There's also language requiring that you remove your mask at the request of law enforcement or by the owner or agent of public or private property.
Once again, party of small government.
My trip to the Outer Banks (again) this summer potentially just got more interesting.
Restrictions on masks, in a bill revised by legislative Republicans last week to include an unrelated, controversial campaign finance provision, are headed to the desk of Gov. Roy Cooper after a final vote Tuesday. The bill, which was unveiled Thursday as a compromise between House and Senate Republicans, rewrites a provision in state law that allows people to wear masks in public for health and safety reasons, limiting it to only permit “medical and surgical grade” masks, and only for the purpose of “preventing the spread of contagious disease.”
...
Several provisions of the bill have come under scrutiny since the masking law changes were first proposed last month. One change the bill would make covers when police officers can ask people wearing masks for their health to take them off. Current law states that people have to take their masks off if asked by law enforcement officers only if it’s during a traffic stop or at a checkpoint or roadblock, or if the officer had “reasonable suspicion or probable cause during a criminal investigation.” The bill removes those conditions, changing the language to state instead that anyone masking in public to prevent the spread of contagious disease “remove the mask upon request by a law enforcement officer.” Rep. Marcia Morey, a Durham Democrat, said that such a provision would likely be found to violate people’s constitutional rights. Democratic Rep. Pricey Harrison, meanwhile, told lawmakers on the House floor that she would personally be affected by the changes the bill would make, having recently been diagnosed with severe asthma.
On the bright side, they're effectively banning chin diapers and the mesh 'masks' that assholes wore during the pandemic as a shoulder chip. Neither one is for “preventing the spread of contagious disease.”
I mean, the whole thing is awful, but since I was advised not to punch those people, I'll take what satisfaction I can get.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:36 pm
North Carolina is about as much the land of freedom as Texas. Most of the jolly inhabitants of the land of freedom think it's bullshit.
Also, those are the kind of insulting generalizations that cause people to react negatively to you.
You guys can't take a joke. Don't be too serious. You should be able to laugh when they proposed a stupid law like that.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:36 pm
North Carolina is about as much the land of freedom as Texas. Most of the jolly inhabitants of the land of freedom think it's bullshit.
Also, those are the kind of insulting generalizations that cause people to react negatively to you.
You guys can't take a joke. Don't be too serious. You should be able to laugh when they proposed a stupid law like that.
When our country is tearing itself apart, and people are actively sowing discord (including here in this forum), you might want to be absolutely certain that your jokes are seen as jokes.
Behind every "silly" bill Republicans pass, there is a deadly serious motivation behind it. They hide behind the absurdity, or disguise their evil behind something that on the surface sounds like common sense. They exploit those who lack critical thinking or are disconnected from politics.
Every single bill they pass is designed to either give them more control over their constituents or to keep themselves in power. Those are the only two things they care about.
This bill has nothing to do with a real concern that somehow protesters are hiding their faces from law enforcement (they don't ever seem to have a problem with the KKK hiding behind hoods). It has everything to do with establishing control over pandemic responses. These people are anti-mask, and so they make up some bullshit story about this being related to protesters and hope everyone buys it.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 11:11 pm
Behind every "silly" bill Republicans pass, there is a deadly serious motivation behind it. They hide behind the absurdity, or disguise their evil behind something that on the surface sounds like common sense. They exploit those who lack critical thinking or are disconnected from politics.
Every single bill they pass is designed to either give them more control over their constituents or to keep themselves in power. Those are the only two things they care about.
This bill has nothing to do with a real concern that somehow protesters are hiding their faces from law enforcement (they don't ever seem to have a problem with the KKK hiding behind hoods). It has everything to do with establishing control over pandemic responses. These people are anti-mask, and so they make up some bullshit story about this being related to protesters and hope everyone buys it.
Actually, that's an interesting point: I'll admit that I thought the wearing of a KKK hood and mask was protected 1st Amendment expression, but apparently not:
There are anti-mask laws in many U.S. states and the District of Columbia.[1]
New York State's anti-mask law was enacted in 1845, to provide for public safety after disputes between landlords and tenants.[2]
Many anti-mask laws date back to the mid-20th century, when states and municipalities passed them to stop the violent activities of the Ku Klux Klan, whose members typically wore hoods of white linen to conceal their identities.[3][4]
In the 21st century those laws have been applied to political protesters such as those affiliated with the Occupy Movement or Anonymous – wearing Guy Fawkes masks.[5][6][7][8]
These laws have been challenged on the grounds that they violate the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to free speech and free association. Some courts have weighed freedom of speech against the public safety interest, and upheld such laws. For example, the Georgia Supreme Court found the law constitutional on the grounds that the wearing of the mask was an act of intimidation and a threat of violence, which is not protected speech.[9] That law has exceptions for holiday celebrations, theatre performances, and occupational safety; the ruling makes it unclear if someone is violating the law if they wear a mask without the intent to threaten violence. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a New York law on the ground that wearing a Ku Klux Klan mask did not convey a protected message beyond that conveyed by wearing a hood and robe.[2] Other courts have struck down anti-mask laws. For example, Tennessee and Florida state laws have been invalidated on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally broad.[9] An ordinance in Goshen, Indiana, was struck down based on First Amendment doctrine that specifically protects anonymous speech and anonymous association, especially for unpopular groups like the KKK.[2]
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
If I had to bet, I never would have guessed NYC and NY would be next:
Gov. Kathy Hochul says she is exploring at least a partial ban on masks in the New York City subway system after images and videos of masked anti-Israel protesters on a train ricocheted around social media earlier this week.
In a news conference at the state Capitol on Thursday, Hochul said she has started discussions with Mayor Eric Adams and state lawmakers about what a mask crackdown would look like and how to craft exemptions for health and religious reasons. The mayor’s office did not immediately provide comment, but confirmed it was looking into the issue.
But Hochul made clear she wants to see mask restrictions in some form, which she believes would help deter crime on public transit.
After all my time in Nevada, I'm used to mask restrictions. The idea doesn't bother me, as they are often used to embolden criminals.
But there is a wild difference between banning masks, and banning masks for medical use. I'm not sure how it could be written or what enforcement would look like, but the concept isn't malevolent in and of itself.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 7:51 pm
The concept of not being able to obscure your identity in public seems pretty malevolent to me.
Since I feel like the sarcastic knocks are about to roll in, I'll just ask: I'm socially dense, and spent years working in places where hiding your identity was against the law. What's malevolent about it?
If your workplace requires you to show your face, it is reasonable to follow the rules if you want to work there. It is the same as if the workplace requires people to wear masks because of COVID-19, then just wear masks if you want to work there.
But in public it is not reasonable to ban masks. I find it is funny that the group of people who want to be able to not wear masks by claiming they support freedom, now want to limit freedom of others that want to wear masks. Also it is kinda like what they said with their opposition to gun control. Criminals don't follow rule of law. Gun control only applies to law abiding people. The same is true for law against masks. Criminals are still going to ignore that and wear masks if they want to hide their faces. The law is only going to stop law abiding people from wearing masks.
I'm not talking about workplace. I worked in casinos, and it was against state law to conceal your face in a casino. But that wasn't what I was asking about at all. I was saying, aside from medical (and weather!) reasons, what is the objection to not allowing people to hide their face in public? Who would it affect other than maybe people doing cosplay?
That's not me arguing for or against the concept, it's me saying that I don't really understand what makes that malevolent, and asking for the reasoning.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 7:51 pm
The concept of not being able to obscure your identity in public seems pretty malevolent to me.
Since I feel like the sarcastic knocks are about to roll in, I'll just ask: I'm socially dense, and spent years working in places where hiding your identity was against the law. What's malevolent about it?
Being able to obscure your identity in public is at the core of right to privacy, I feel. Taking that away feels like an attack.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 7:51 pm
The concept of not being able to obscure your identity in public seems pretty malevolent to me.
Since I feel like the sarcastic knocks are about to roll in, I'll just ask: I'm socially dense, and spent years working in places where hiding your identity was against the law. What's malevolent about it?
Being able to obscure your identity in public is at the core of right to privacy, I feel. Taking that away feels like an attack.
If you're joining a demonstration against TPTB and you know that facial recognition software is cataloguing the crowd, maybe you don't want to be in the database that the FBI is building on the fly. Especially if you're an upstanding citizen whose reputation and business could be harmed by associating with riffraff to advance an unpopular opinion.
Blackhawk wrote:what is the objection to not allowing people to hide their face in public?
I see your point and ordinarily I wouldn't think much of it. But I think the malevolence of the idea comes from my mistrust of the party pushing the ban. Keep in mind that in NC, they wanted to ban them for *any* reason (including medical) and only backed off because of the pushback they received. So they "settled" for only banning non-medical mask usage. There was never any good faith attempt to make this ban only about protesters or criminals (which in their mind are one and the same).
I'm against it because it's one more level of government control, one more degree of boiling the frog. It's not a great leap in my eyes from controlling what people can wear to protests to what signs they can bring to protests to what they are allowed to protest to outlawing all protests.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 11:04 pm
Being able to obscure your identity in public is at the core of right to privacy, I feel. Taking that away feels like an attack.
+1.
If you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't object...
