Ducey Signs Another Pro-Pandemic Law

 


A couple weeks ago, I blogged about some pro-pandemic laws passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. They were "do overs" of the legislature's failed attempt to attach similar measures banning mask and vaccine mandates to a budget bill last year.

Last Friday (classic timing to limit news coverage) the governor signed another bill tying the hands of his successors (but not himself!) with respect to pandemic emergencies. This one would limit the duration of an emergency to 120 days unless extended by the legislature.

That doesn't sound so bad, I suppose. They could have passed a law—which Ducey would probably have also rubber-stamped—prohibiting future governors from declaring any public health emergencies. 

But you've got to wonder what these politicians are thinking by passing this and the previous measures. They amount to constraints on what the government can do to combat a disease outbreak. 

These measures are reactions to the current emergency. Even if we allow (which I do not) that the politicians are right that the current pandemic measures have involved overreach, they are assuming that all future emergencies will be like this one.

But what if the next one is worse? For example what if—God forbid—something like Ebola or some more horrible disease gets a foothold in this country? Is it a good idea to tie the hands of public health officials because a bunch of present-day COVIDiots are mad that their free-dumb was violated this time around?


Popular posts from this blog

Looks Like Immune Responses are Enduring After All

Another One Bites the Dust

Anti-Mitigation Groups Have Formed a Death Cult