POLICE STATE, USA
Emergency health bill passing in many states
Measure grants government 'dictatorial powers' during crisis
Posted: July 25, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
A federally generated "model" health bill critics say gives governors
absolute power in the event of a "health emergency" is steadily progressing
through the states, say health and legislative monitoring organizations who
are tracking its progress.
According to its most recent analysis, the
American Legislative Exchange Council which has been tracking the
bill's progress said most states have either passed or are considering
passing the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act."
Sue Blevins, a spokeswoman with the
Institute for Health Freedom,
agreed, noting that an analysis by her group found a total of 19 states so
far have approved some form of the measure, which was developed by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and introduced to state leaders
last year following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Blevins said she wasn't sure how many states have rejected the bill so
far, but said she and other IHF analysts are looking into it.
"We don't know for sure" how many states have failed to pass the
legislation, she said. "Because of the language of the legislative activity
in some states, it's not clear if it was outright rejected or if the
legislative session ended before lawmakers could act."
James G. Hodge, Jr., of the
Center for Law and the Public's Health a Johns Hopkins and Georgetown
University facility said a few states like Kentucky, California and
Wyoming have outright rejected the bill this legislative session, but said
the center remains hopeful for its passage in future sessions.
"There are so many states where our news tells us we didn't actually pass
[the bill] this time but we're going to reintroduce it," said Hodge, noting
that budget negotiations or other issues tended to delay some legislatures
from taking the measure up.
"In those states
I don't consider it a rejection. It's just a timing
issue, really," he said.
The center
also tracks the bill's progress and published an updated version of its
analysis on Tuesday. (Editor's note: You must have an Adobe Acrobat
reader to view the linked .pdf file.)
Touted by supporters as an anti-terrorism tool,
WorldNetDaily reported in March that according to the bill's authors at
the CDC and The Center for Law and the Public's Health, it was "prepared
pursuant to Healthy People 2010, a Department of Health and Human Services
nationwide health-promotion agenda."
However, critics have blasted it as a means to allow governors
dictatorial rule simply by declaring a public-health emergency. Under
provisions of the model bill, state leaders would be permitted to confiscate
property, seize firearms, quarantine entire cities, and vaccinate citizens
even against their will. Critics also contend governors already have enough
power to assume authority in the event of an emergency.
Blevins said another questionable provision in the model legislation
removes public and private sector workers from any liability for
administering vaccines ordered by government officials to treat the
population in the event of a disease outbreak.
She said that's important because a few public interest health groups
have demonstrated that some vaccines can be harmful or lethal to large
sectors of the population including smallpox vaccines, which the federal
government is said to be developing as a hedge against a potential future
terrorist bio-attack. But under the legislation, said Blevins, not only can
governors order citizens to receive these oft-dangerous vaccines, but
everyone involved will be protected from liability even if they know it's
dangerous.
One public health organization that is trying to warn the public about
dangerous vaccines is the National Vaccine
Information Center. Headed by Barbara Loe Fisher, the group said in a
statement last month that it endorses a June decision "by the Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) [in] advising against releasing vaccinia (smallpox) virus
vaccine for mass use by the general population."
NVIC officials attended CDC-sponsored information sessions held this
spring in Atlanta, New York, San Francisco, San Antonio and St. Louis. And
in each location, NVIC officials said, the CDC never once demonstrated an
urgent need to vaccinate the American public.
"In all of the meetings to discuss smallpox vaccination options, there
was no credible evidence presented to suggest that the smallpox virus was
going to be intentionally released or could be successfully used by
terrorists as a bioterrorism weapon," said Fisher's June 24 statement.
"In fact, CDC experts continued to insist the theoretical probability of
the eradicated virus being intentionally released was 'very low,'" she
continued. "And yet, plans are now going forward to intentionally release
the very reactive live vaccinia virus into our population by exposing at
least 20,000 health care workers and their close contacts to the very real
risks of injury and death from the most reactive vaccine humans have ever
used."
Fisher said her group agrees with the government's decision to stockpile
smallpox vaccine for emergencies, but added: "We are not in an emergency
situation."
Related stories:
Emergency powers bill gaining momentum
Bill would give governors absolute power
Some may refuse smallpox shots
Jon E. Dougherty is a
staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily, and author of the special
report,
"Election 2000: How the Military Vote Was Suppressed."
E-mail to a
Friend |
Printer-friendly version |
|