Emergency Health Powers Act
Emergency-Powers Bill Gaining Momentum
By Jon Dougherty
The vast majority of states currently are considering a piece of model
legislation that critics charge could turn out to be a major threat to civil
liberties.
According to the http://www.alec.org American Legislative Exchange Council,
a Washington, D.C.-based small-government advocacy group, 34 states have
begun considering the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act," a bill that
critics contend gives state governors unprecedented authority in the event
of a terrorist attack or other threat to the public health.
As reported news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25993 by WorldNetDaily Jan. 10,
the bill, if adopted as written, grants governors the power to order the
collection of all data and records on citizens, ban firearms, take control
of private property and quarantine entire cities.
An initial version of the bill was drafted in October 2001, just a month
after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, by The Center for Law and the Public's
Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, in collaboration with
several other organizations, including the http://www.cdc.gov Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Ga.
But as word - and criticism - of the measure spread, its authors released a
second draft Dec. 21, though ALEC says much of the original intent remained
unchanged.
"While some of these changes reflect the concerns shared by groups
interested in protecting and promoting civil liberties, other changes were
merely cosmetic, inexplicable or altogether nonexistent," said a policy
analysis paper issued by ALEC, which opposes the model bill.
"Moreover, the release of a revised draft does not mask the original intent
of the authors, nor does it prevent states that have already introduced the
original draft from considering the original provisions," the group said.
Jennifer King, the director of the Health and Human Services task force for
ALEC, said that although "we're not breathing easy yet," most states so far
have chosen to "water down" the model bill.
She told WorldNetDaily that South Dakota is the first and only state thus
far to pass the measure, but it, too, "was a fairly watered-down version."
"It doesn't have all the offensive quarantine or ration language in it that
the CDC model had," she said.
But Minnesota "is very close to passing the closest version of the bill that
we have seen," she said, though "it's still been watered down considerably
to require some studying of certain aspects." Other states have been
"active" in holding hearings regarding the bill.
Mississippi, by contrast, "has killed the bill outright" the only state so
far to do so, she said. And in other "positive trends," at least two other
states, Georgia and Oklahoma, "added in some language saying that if the
governor declares the public health emergency, then the legislature has to
come into session within 48 hours and vote it up or down," said King.
"From our perspective, we found that to be quite positive," she said. "We
should see a really hard push [in many states] in the next few weeks."
The model bill's preamble recalls the events of Sept. 11, focusing attention
on a "need to protect the health and safety of citizens from epidemics and
bioterrorism," according to one analysis. Since the terrorist attacks,
federal officials have repeatedly warned that the threat of chemical,
biological and even nuclear attack is "real."
The Homeland Security Agency, under its director, Tom Ridge, has even issued
a new color-coded warning system, to gauge the level of threat against the
nation at any given time.
But critics say the level of control that could be assumed by state
authorities is unprecedented.
An analysis by ALEC says the bill "strips individuals and families of their
rights and liberties at the expense of government," while representing
"unnecessary and duplicative legislation given existing state
natural-disaster statutes."
The bill, as written, "provides a number of potential legal loopholes for
trial lawyers to extort," grants "overly sweeping rights to the government,"
and "fails to consider individual state needs," the group said.
Also, the measure "consolidates broad powers" to unelected public health
officials while it "erects barriers to states' ability to respond, slowing
down response times." It also utilizes "vague language" to "define key
concepts, including when an emergency can be declared," the ALEC analysis
concluded.
According to the measure, a "public health emergency" is defined as:
"an occurrence or imminent threat of an illness or health
condition, caused by bioterrorism, epidemic or pandemic
disease, or novel and highly fatal infectious agent or
biological toxin, that poses a substantial risk of a
significant number of human fatalities or incidents of
permanent or long-term disability. Such illness or health
condition includes, but is not limited to, an illness or
health condition resulting from a national disaster."
The bill's authors have defended the measure, however, saying they believe
it is a necessary tool to give state authorities the power they need to deal
quickly with unconventional threats to the public safety.
Lawrence O. Gostin, director and principal investigator for the Center for
Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins, says there are
no tools on the books for lawmakers and state chief executives to
effectively deal with health emergencies such as bioterrorism.
"Current public health laws are too highly antiquated and
inadequate to ensure a strong and effective response to
bioterrorism," Gostin said. "Existing laws thwart public
health officials in rapidly identifying and ameliorating
health threats, thus jeopardizing the public's safety."
And last fall, when the model bill was unveiled, Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy Thompson hailed it as "an important tool for state and local
officials to respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies."
However, some legal experts warn that even legislation that appears harmless
or well-intended could be dangerous to civil liberties.
"We should think always that every new law may be enforced
by our worst enemies," B. Utley, the Robert A. Taft fellow
in constitutional and international studies at the Ludwig
von Mises Institute, told WND last October, after President
Bush signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001.
"As drafted, whether these threats are justified depends
upon the opinion of only one person, the governor of a
state," he said. Legislatures that may consider the bill
at some point should "work to improve the model act to
minimize the chance that a governor could make a mistake."
Others contend the entire bill is unnecessary because governors already
retain the authority to declare emergencies should one arise. The model
bill, however, would override some of the civil-liberties protections built
into current state statutes.
About one-third of all state legislators are members of ALEC.
It was founded in 1973 by a "small group of state legislators and
conservative policy advocates Ö who share a common belief in limited
government, free markets, federalism and individual liberty."
|