(The Center Square) – Proponents and critics of a Washington state bill regarding public health continue to argue over the exact impacts it will have on matters such as vaccine mandates or restrictions in response to the outbreak of a virus.
Rep. Dan Bronoske, D-Lakewood, is the sponsor of House Bill 1531, which declares that state and local officials must implement and promote “evidence-based” measures to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, which includes vaccines. State and local officials cannot enact any policies that prevent such implementation and their promotion.
The bill’s initial public hearing received enormous pushback, which those testifying arguing it could result in a top-down approach to public health decisions and potentially lead to a statewide vaccine mandate.
In response, Bronoske sponsored an amendment on the House floor that added the following to the intent section of the bill: “The legislature does not intend by this enactment to modify, limit, or expand any existing requirement or establish any new requirement for any individual to receive any vaccine or take any other similar measure to control the spread of communicable disease, nor does the legislature intend by this enactment to modify, limit, or expand any existing authority or grant any new authority to establish any such requirement.”
Nevertheless, there were 4,600 people signed in against HB 1531 at its Friday public hearing before the Senate Long-Term Health Care Committee, according to Sen. Leonard Christian, R-Spokane Valley.
“If this bill is really about communication, why are we looking at 4,600 people taking the time to write in that they’re con on this bill?” he asked colleagues at the public hearing. “It seems like a bill about educating the public has done a very poor job when so many people have taken the time to come in.”
Bronoske told the committee that the bill is “about education. I’ve done everything … within my power to speak with members of the public, to include a public hearing in the House, to include public floor debate in the House in this policy. Every media outlet that’s reached out to me, I’ve been willing to speak with, to tell them about … what I believe the effect of this policy is going to be.”
“Regardless, I think that you’re going to hear from those folks today in person and virtually about why they’re still opposed to this particular policy,” he added. “I might personally disagree with their viewpoint in that they might feel that there’s going to be impacts of this bill that they’re uncomfortable with. I respectfully disagree with those opinions and interpretations of this policy.”
Among the bill’s detractors was Enrique Rico with the Washington State Young Republicans, who questioned why the bill was necessary.
“Does that suggest that Washington state officials do not already follow the best available evidence-based measures?” he asked. “Is that the same science [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and the CDC used when the six-foot social distancing rule just sort of appeared without any evidence-based reasoning? Is this going to be the same science that rushed a vaccine out in a year and did not have enough data to give patients the proper informed consent about the potential side effects and health risks? This is bad science.”
Among the physicians in favor of the bill was Jay Miller, a health officer at the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department.
LIST: THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS, ACTIONS, AND PROCLAMATIONS TRUMP HAS MADE AS PRESIDENT
“I have the ability to issue health orders is the very rare occurrence,” he said. “When it’s warranted, it typically would address a narrow situation like a person with tuberculosis who is knowingly exposing others to tuberculosis. House Bill 1531 ensures that I can fulfill my fundamental responsibilities. If I were to be restricted from sharing the best available medical information, I could not fulfill my basic role as a physician and as a health officer.”
The bill is scheduled for a committee vote on Tuesday.
