The following Article was written by Senator Richard Moore regarding S.2028 - Please read and respond as may be appropriate.
Friday, September 18, 2009 Blackstone Valley Tribune - Page 5 / 38
Protecting ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’
by Senator Richard Moore - "Beacon Hill View"
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is one of the most famous phrases in America’s Declaration of Independence. These three aspects, which are listed among the inalienable rights that we all enjoy, are based on the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke expressed the fundamental belief that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
However, just saying the words doesn’t guarantee that we have, or can keep, these rights. Each of us must stand up for our rights and the rights of others. In our democracy, we expect our government to preserve, protect, and defend those rights.
Around Sept. 11 each year since 2001, we remember events when a small group of terrorists tried to take those rights away. In fact, they did deprive several thousand innocent civilians and dedicated emergency responders of their lives, health, liberty and possessions. A few months later, one or more individuals tried, once again, to deprive Americans of their inalienable rights when letters containing the deadly anthrax bacteria were mailed to media and government offices. Some postal workers who handled those letters became ill and died.
Most of us believe that our government has, or should have, the authority and the responsibility to take necessary actions to protect us from those who are intent on harming or killing us, or depriving us of our liberties. We also expect that our government will take steps to protect us and our loved ones from the spread of deadly viruses or the consequences of natural disasters, even if protecting all of us might temporarily limit our individual freedoms. After all, while we all have basic rights as Americans, most of us understand that we also have a fundamental responsibility not to harm anyone by our individual actions or decisions.
We have conferred on our government the resources and the authority to protect us when society is threatened, as with the threat of a major disease epidemic on the magnitude of the Great Influenza Epidemic. That epidemic killed thousands of Massachusetts residents in 1918. In recent months, there have been numerous reported cases of a virus called H1N1, or swine flu, that have renewed health concerns and we expect our government to offer protection.
Although Massachusetts and other state governments have the authority to require us to be vaccinated, no one has proposed that vaccinations for any flu be mandatory. Certainly, there is no H1N1 vaccine currently approved for use, but even when a vaccine becomes available, no one is planning to require that we all get vaccinated. Nevertheless, under existing law — upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts [197 U.S. 11 (1905)] — mandatory vaccination is deemed “a legitimate exercise of the state’s police power to protect the public health and safety of its citizens.” The state has the authority to vaccinate, but has stated that it will not mandate such action in the case of H1N1.
In an effort to protect all of us from any arbitrary abuse of this authority, legislators and public health experts began to review state public health emergency laws in 2001 following the anthrax incident. Leading legal and public health scholars from around the nation worked under the guidance of the Georgetown Law School Center for Public Health Law, along with public health experts from Johns Hopkins University Medical School, to draft a model act to guide state efforts to update public health laws that, in most cases, had not been reformed since the1918 flu. To date, 45 states have introduced bills in their legislatures based in whole or in part on the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, and 38 states have passed those bills, including many Northeast states. The Act has become one of the most widely used models for public health legal reform ever.
In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Massachusetts Hospital Association, the Massachusetts Public Health Association, and others have been working with legislators for the past eight years to craft a bill to update public health emergency preparedness statutes in light of the views of today’s society. As the bill has been developed, it has had several well-attended public hearings and formal debate in both branches of the Legislature. It has been improved with each responsible criticism. The bill under consideration attempts to narrow the current broad state public health authority to protect individual liberties, while protecting the rights of all citizens in the spirit that John Locke espoused that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
Contrary to what some have been saying in the media and in blogs, the bill — Senate Bill No. 2028 — does NOT mandate vaccination. It does say that if public health officials believe that vaccination is the recommended prevention measure, and someone does not want to be vaccinated to protect themselves and those around them, the public health officials MAY order that they be isolated or quarantined. While some states ordered quarantines last spring because of H1N1 virus, Massachusetts health officials did not. In fact, throughout the last century, public health officials have used their emergency powers sparingly and responsibly.
The “Pandemic Public Health Emergency Preparedness” bill would allow arrest or entry into property for violations of quarantine, but only if there is “probable cause.” This is a high standard defined by numerouscourt decisions over the years, and those officials who abuse or ignore that standard get into serious trouble. The bill actually sets a framework of standards in place to narrow the sweeping emergency powers that are already in place so that individuals have legal protection from abuse by any government official.
While some who distrust any government are opposing passage of this bill, if they fully understood its purpose and studied the bill in the context of existing law, they ought to be calling for its swift passage rather than protesting and demonizing those who advocate for the law.
Admittedly, no law is perfect or is universally applicable regardless of the circumstances. We are all subject to the errors of being human. Therefore, if there are legitimate concerns with the bill, they can be considered in the coming weeks as the Massachusetts House debates the issue. Even if the bill is passed and signed by the governor, the bill — as with most complex legislation — will need to have regulations drafted to implement its provisions, and public hearings will give people another opportunity for input.
The facts are that those of us who are advocating responsible public health emergency preparedness are not acting out of any nefarious, “Big Brother” mentality, but out of a genuine concern for protecting the health and lives of all citizens without arbitrary restrictions on the rights of any one citizen. Debate on the issue should focus not on personal and slanderous attacks on individuals, but on the merits of the legislation. A debate on the merits and the substantive issues is another American right, but outrageous personal attacks against others is not a respected means of dissent — at least not up until now in America!
Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge, is a regular contributor to the Blackstone Valley Tribune.
BLACKSTONE VALLEY TRIBUNE LETTERS POLICY
Our opinion pages are a forum for columnists and our valued readers to express their views and thoughts on a variety of issues.
We strongly encourage people to speak their mind through The Tribune, and make it easy to do so by offering two forums — Letters to the Editor and guest columns — through which to get a point across.
Letters to the editor are always welcome, and can be sent to the
Mr. Andy Levin, Editor
Blackstone Valley Tribune
25 Elm Street
Southbridge, MA 01550
or via e-mail at andy@stonebridgepress.com
Please refrain from sending letters via fax, and be sure to supply a home address and phone number to allow for confirmation. Allow at least 48 hours for a response. Letters must be submitted by 4 p.m. Friday to ensure publication in the following Wednesday’s issue. Comments of a slanderous or libelous nature will not be published, and personal attacks will not be allowed.
The maximum word count for letters is 500.
