Louisiana 2024 Regular Session

Louisiana House Bill HB87

Introduced
2/15/24  
Introduced
2/15/24  
Refer
2/15/24  
Refer
2/15/24  
Refer
3/11/24  
Refer
3/11/24  
Report Pass
3/18/24  
Report Pass
3/18/24  
Engrossed
4/2/24  
Engrossed
4/2/24  
Refer
4/3/24  

Caption

Provides relative to liability arising from COVID-19 vaccinations

Impact

The enactment of HB 87 would substantially alter the legal landscape for public health regulations in Louisiana. By prohibiting vaccine and mask mandates generally, the bill may lead to increased transmission of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases in environments where mandates are typically observed. Moreover, the specified exceptions for healthcare settings indicate that the bill seeks to balance public health needs with individual freedoms, although this raises questions about the efficacy of protective measures in communal settings.

Summary

House Bill 87, introduced by Representative Echols, prohibits governmental entities and businesses from mandating vaccinations and masks against COVID-19, with specific exceptions. The bill defines a 'governmental entity' and outlines situations where mandates can still be imposed, such as in nursing facilities, hospitals, and under certain federal requirements. This legislation aims to limit the regulatory authority of both state and local governments regarding health mandates, reflecting a significant push toward personal choice and autonomy in health decisions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 87 shows considerable division among stakeholders. Proponents argue that the bill supports personal liberties and that individuals should have the right to make their own health choices without government interference. Conversely, opponents, including public health officials and some healthcare advocates, view the bill as a dangerous step backwards in the fight against the pandemic, arguing that mandates are necessary to protect vulnerable populations and prevent healthcare systems from becoming overwhelmed.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the bill's potential implications for public health policy and personal responsibility. Critics express concerns that limiting government authority to enforce mask and vaccination mandates could undermine the state's ability to manage public health crises effectively. Furthermore, the financial penalties outlined for violations raise questions about enforcement and compliance, as critics argue that the penalties could disproportionately affect smaller businesses and government entities ill-prepared to deal with such litigation.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

OK HB3720

Local government investments; Oklahoma Local Government Investments Act of 2024; effective date.

TX SB1048

Relating to the creation of public and private facilities and infrastructure.

CA AB839

Medi-Cal: targeted case management.

TX HB2432

Relating to the creation of public and private facilities and infrastructure.

WV SB255

Relating to state contracts with and investments in certain companies that boycott energy companies

CA AB481

California Mental Health Planning Council: name change.

TX HB390

Relating to the Internet broadcast or recording of certain open meetings.

TX HB1442

Relating to the Internet broadcast or recording of certain open meetings.