During the first weeks of legislative session, numerous bills have been introduced to fight coercive vaccine mandates. Here are some of the bills that we consider most significant, along with the position taken by Mandate Free South Dakota (MFSD). (There are additional bills we are monitoring that will be covered in future posts).
HB 1008 by Rep. Fred Deutsch. MFSD position: SUPPORT
HB 1008 states that if an employer requires an employee to get injected with a vaccine as a condition of employment, then the employer is liable for any injuries or illness that may result from the vaccination. Naturally, we expect to hear howls of protest from business lobbyists about how unfair this is. On the contrary, it’s perfectly reasonable. If businesses want to interfere with the personal medical decisions of their workers, the least we should expect is for them to take responsibility for adverse consequences. Afraid of getting sued? Easy solution: let your employees make their own medical decisions, free of coercion, and you’ll be off the hook. What a radical idea.
HB 1256 by Rep. Scott Odenbach. MFSD position: SUPPORT
This bill requires employers who mandate COVID-19 vaccinations to allow three exemptions. First, employees are exempt if they submit a written statement from a physician stating that a vaccination is not recommended for medical reasons. Second, employees are exempt if they submit a signed statement stating that they object to a COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds, which includes moral, ethical, and philosophical beliefs or principles. Third, employees are exempt if they submit a signed statement attesting to their immunity due to a prior COVID-19 infection. HB 1256 does not apply to members of the South Dakota National Guard, presumably to avoid an impasse with the federal government, which has mandated injections for all those in uniform. MFSD believes the men and women who serve in the Guard are no less deserving of medical freedom than anyone else, and we think a state challenge to federal authority in this area would be beneficial.
HB 1224 by Rep. Steven Haugaard. MFSD position: SUPPORT
HB 1224 would ensure that unemployment insurance benefits are granted to workers who are fired because they refuse to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccine that is mandated by their employer. Like HB 1008 by Rep. Deutsch, this bill simply holds employers accountable for the consequences of their decisions. If you want to compel your workers to accept a medical intervention, you need to accept responsibility for the fallout that ensues. If that seems too burdensome, the solution is obvious: stop treating your employees like cattle and let them make their own health care decisions.
Governor Noem Draft Bill. MFSD position: AMEND
On January 27 the Governor released a draft bill to establish exemptions from vaccine mandates. She stated her bill aims to “…protect the liberty of our people to make the best decisions for themselves and their families.”
We applaud this goal, but the Governor’s draft bill has some problematic language that needs to be fixed. For example, the bill’s religious exemption is nebulous. It states that “religious grounds” would include “moral or ethical beliefs or principles but not social, political, or economic philosophies or mere preference.” Does anyone know what this word salad means? All this language does is invite employers to second-guess whether a worker’s objection is authentically “religious” in nature, or just a “social philosophy.” This kind of ambiguity rarely ends well. It risks lengthy argumentation and litigation. Employers and employees alike will benefit from language that is simple, clear, and not subject to misinterpretation.
The bill also contains an exemption based on natural immunity from a prior COVID-19 infection. We support that. However, the Governor’s bill would require an employee claiming such an exemption to submit a positive serum antibody test from a CLIA-certified laboratory, and the test must show that there are specific antibodies against COVID-19 within 180 days of when the exemption is requested. Furthermore, the employer can require the employee to submit new antibody tests every 180 days!
This language is problematic. First, there are many doubts about the accuracy of existing antibody tests, which were rushed into use due to the emergency nature of the pandemic. Second, what is the scientific basis for requiring a test to prove immunity every 180 days? There are numerous studies demonstrating that natural immunity is long-lasting and durable. Furthermore, if waning immunity is a concern, why isn’t it ALSO a concern for those who have been vaccinated? There is no dispute that immunity from the COVID-19 vaccines wears off quickly. That’s why public health authorities are pushing boosters – for how long, nobody knows. They’re making it up as they go along, with millions of citizens acting as guinea pigs, some willingly and some not.
The Governor’s exemption bill requires those who have natural immunity to “prove” that their immunity is still robust and durable, every 180 days, without making any similar requirement of those who have been vaccinated. This is unacceptable, and it’s unscientific—like so much of the public health response to the pandemic.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The bills above, plus others we are following, will move quickly through the legislative process. Look for frequent action alerts from Mandate Free South Dakota. We’ll let you know when bills are scheduled for committee hearings, and when we need you to engage with lawmakers and let them know your views. The best way you can help now is to forward this alert to friends, family members, co-workers and others who support the cause of medical freedom. The more people we can get to join the Mandate Free South Dakota team, the greater the impact we can have during this legislative session.
This handy guide created by Mandate Free SD will assist you in connecting with your legislators in email, by phone or with a conversation in person at a cracker barrel or legislative coffee. Your voice can make all the difference.
Image by Paul-W via Creative Commons.