A bill for an act relating to powers and duties applicable to state of disaster emergencies and public health disasters.
SF91 explicitly outlines what a proclamation during a disaster emergency cannot include, particularly concerning individual rights. It prohibits measures that infringe on constitutionally protected rights unless justified by compelling state interests and restricts any form of surveillance or tracking without consent. The bill's stipulations are intended to protect freedoms and prevent overreach during public health emergencies, providing a framework to safeguard individual liberties while also addressing public health needs. Notably, it does not allow the identification and monitoring of at-risk individuals based on potential exposure, which has been a point of concern during recent health crises.
Senate File 91 (SF91) addresses the powers and duties related to state disaster emergencies and public health disasters. The bill significantly modifies how proclamations of a state of disaster emergency are managed, extending the duration from 30 days to 60 days, and limits the governor's authority to unilaterally extend such declarations. Instead, it places this power in the hands of the General Assembly, which must act to extend or rescind the proclamation. This change aims to enhance legislative oversight during public health crises, ensuring that such emergencies are managed in accordance with representative governance.
One of the most contentious aspects of SF91 involves its regulations surrounding vaccination and public health measures. While the bill allows health authorities to recommend vaccinations, it explicitly bars them from mandating such actions, including penalties for non-compliance. Additionally, it enshrines religious exemptions based on sincerely held beliefs rather than adherence to a specific religious denomination, potentially making it easier for individuals to refuse vaccinations or other health-related mandates. This provision has raised concerns among public health officials who argue that it may hinder efforts to control disease outbreaks effectively. Overall, the bill reflects a broader debate over individual rights versus public health imperatives in the context of disaster management.