Virginia Senate Bill SB458

Virginia 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/11/22
• Refer: 1/11/22

Caption

Face coverings; prohibits enforcement of policy, etc., to wear.

Impact

The passage of SB458 would significantly alter how public health measures regarding face coverings can be applied within various jurisdictions in Virginia. By limiting the authority of local governments and schools to mandate such health precautions, the bill may lead to a heterogenous application of health measures across the state. This raises concerns about the ability of local entities to respond effectively to public health needs based on the specific conditions in their areas, especially amid ongoing emergency situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summary

SB458 aims to amend the Code of Virginia by prohibiting localities, school boards, and employers from enforcing policies that require face coverings due to COVID-19. The legislation specifically states that no locality can implement any rule or order related to COVID-19 that mandates the wearing of face coverings by its citizens. This measure applies broadly across different sectors, including schools and higher education institutions, ensuring that no educational body can compel students, employees, or visitors to wear masks. Additionally, the bill covers employers by preventing them from enforcing similar policies in a workplace setting.

Contention

The bill has sparked contention among lawmakers and the public regarding the balance between individual freedoms and public health concerns. Supporters argue that it safeguards personal freedoms and prevents governmental overreach, asserting that individuals should have the choice to wear face coverings rather than being mandated to do so. Conversely, opponents express concerns that this legislation could undermine public health efforts, especially in areas experiencing higher COVID-19 caseloads. The potential ramifications of the bill are evident in the divided voting history, where it received eight votes in favor and four against during its passage in the Senate, reflecting a contentious debate around its implications.