Louisiana House Bill HCR16

Louisiana 2020 2nd Special Session

• Introduced: 9/30/20
• Refer: 9/30/20

Caption

Suspends the state of emergency declared by Proclamation No. 117 JBE 2020 and Proclamation No. 123 JBE 2020 (Items #1, 2, and 28)

Impact

The passage of HCR16 would have significant implications for state laws governing public health and emergency management in Louisiana. By suspending the state of emergency, the bill would effectively restore the legislative authority previously bypassed during the emergency declaration. This change means that future emergency actions would require legislative consultation and approval, thereby impacting how public health crises might be managed in the state moving forward.

Summary

HCR16 is a House Concurrent Resolution that seeks to suspend the state of emergency declared by Governor John Bel Edwards as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially declared in March 2020, the state emergency allowed for the flexibility needed to manage public health concerns, but HCR16 argues that the circumstances have sufficiently evolved. The resolution posits that the state's medical supply chain and emergency management systems have rebounded enough to safely terminate the state of emergency, highlighting a need for a return to normal legislative oversight and authority.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HCR16 is mixed. Supporters argue that it is time to move forward and restore normal governance, reflecting confidence in the recovery from the initial health crisis. On the other hand, opponents may view the resolution as premature, emphasizing the need for continued caution given the ongoing uncertainties associated with the pandemic. This divergence in sentiment reflects broader societal debates on balancing public health needs with economic and civil liberties.

Contention

Notable points of contention include concerns about whether terminating the state emergency might undermine public health efforts and potentially endanger citizens. The resolution's critics could argue that it fails to adequately consider the possibility of future COVID-19 variants and the need for ongoing readiness. Supporters counter this by highlighting the adverse economic impacts experienced by businesses and families during prolonged emergency measures, advocating for a legislative process that more accurately reflects the current recovery stage.