ST. GEORGE — The fear associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has mostly died down, but Rep. Walt Brooks has unfinished legislative business concerning the public’s reaction to the virus and others.
Those in the State Capitol may be feeling deja vu, as Brooks has reintroduced a bill that would keep businesses and other public places in Utah from requiring employees or patrons to be vaccinated.
Brooks, a Republican who represents St. George in the legislature, said his vaccine passport prohibition bill, officially designated HB 131 in the 2023 Utah Legislature, is identical to a bill he introduced in 2022.
The bill already has passed the Utah House in a 60-13 vote and is heading to the Senate floor after passing in the Utah Senate Health and Human Services Committee in a narrow 3-2 vote along party lines.
Like last year’s bill, if passed, this bill would make it illegal for public entities like businesses and government agencies to: restrict patrons based on their vaccination status; require employees to divulge immunization status; and restrict patrons on the basis of whether they are vaccinated.
It includes exemptions for medical providers, schools and child care programs, federal contractors and those that work directly with human blood and waste.
Brooks said it’s not his first rodeo as far as returning a bill to the floor from a previous session. He noted measures he introduced in multiple sessions that were ultimately passed, like the state tax credit for Social Security recipients and another that allows Utahns over 21 to carry firearms without a permit.
“If you think social security, I ran that four times before we got it passed,” Brooks said. “Constitutional carry? I ran that two years in a row before it got passed. So some of these big lifts that are important, they take more than a session to get through.”
The lift was too much in 2022. The bill was brought before the Senate on the last day of the session and an amendment was added that Brooks said “gutted” the bill by removing the requirement on businesses. In response, Brooks pulled the bill without a vote in the final hours of the 2022 session.
Now, it’s on the senate docket with one month left in the current session.
“I pulled it knowing that it’s not gonna pass to address again this year,” Brooks said. “So it is basically the exact same bill as last year. We could have the same issue again, but this time we’ll have more time to work through it, so we can get it resolved because I think we’re standing on really solid ground.”
Brooks said there are three central parts of the bill: keeping government from “telling you what to do,” not having to show a “vaccine passport” or proof of vaccination to “get groceries or get gas,” and keeping businesses from “discriminating” against people whether they are vaccinated or not.
The atmosphere is different now than it was last February. At the time, Southern Utah had just come out of what would prove to be the worst month of the COVID-19 pandemic as far as infections and deaths were concerned. Emotions remained high about whether people should be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
A contentious Utah Senate hearing on last year’s bill resulted in officers needing to escort three people from the room and the chair of the commission admonishing Brooks. This year’s committee hearings went off without raised voices or deputies needing to be called in.
COVID-19 is now an endemic, in the same category as seasonal influenza, rather than a pandemic as hospitals are no longer overloaded with coronavirus patients. Medical experts attribute that to both the COVID-19 vaccine and the disease itself following the natural evolution of viruses that become more contagious, yet less harmful.
Brooks said the post-pandemic calm is precisely why his legislation, which applies to all vaccines, is still relevant now.
“There was a kind of thing where people got panicky that we forgot the existing laws like HIPAA laws in place,” Brooks said, adding he thinks one lesson of the pandemic was that it saw an “inappropriate use” of government power.
“The whole purpose of this bill is to strengthen or brighten the laws that have always been in place up to COVID,” Brooks said. “You didn’t ask people their vaccination status. You didn’t ask them if they had AIDS. HIPAA laws were just really dull and gray and we’re just brightening them again.”
Opposing bill on business or health grounds
While, as Brooks noted, some of the groups that opposed last year’s bill are either supportive or neutral this time around, there is still opposition based on those who fall into two camps: those in the business community who say it places restrictions on businesses by dictating who they can serve, and the health community who worry it will put the public at risk of preventable diseases – especially those who are immunocompromised.
Sunny Washington, the CEO of Utah Tech Leads, said she opposes the bill on business grounds. The leader of the association that represents Utah’s Silicon Slopes technology industry told St. George News in a statement that the bill would be government interfering in how companies do business.
“Our concerns are simple. Is it the proper role of government to limit business and entrepreneurs with respect to the working environments they are responsible for creating?” Washington said. “Could this be discriminatory for those same entrepreneurs who themselves may be faced with autoimmune disorders, creating a conflict between the success of our innovators and their continued health?”
In response, Brooks said the bill won’t prevent businesses from refusing service to someone who is ill or preventing an entity from sending an employee home if they appear under the weather.
“This can’t prevent a business from saying like, “Hey, you look sick. I’m not gonna let you come in.’ You can still do that,” Brooks said. “We (previously) did not go through and ask for people’s personal private health information for them to enter a public accommodation.”
On the health side, some doctors are worried it will tie the hands of public health agencies in the next pandemic in quelling the quick spread of a contagion.
St. George pediatric geneticist Dr. Ellen Arch told St. George News her opposition to the bill has not changed from her stance a year ago. She said she remains concerned it will provide less encouragement for people to be vaccinated from disease and cause the spread of preventable diseases like measles and mumps.
“My answer to the question, ‘Can you have a healthy environment when only a select number of people have been vaccinated?’ has not changed,” Arch said.
One business and health leader who opposed the bill last year said Brooks has done enough to accommodate both concerns. The chairman of BioUtah, which represents Utah pharmacies and medical device providers, said the bill will still allow businesses where people are regularly exposed to viruses to require their employees to be vaccinated.
“Many of our employees are required to go into facilities where they have a vaccine, so I appreciate the clarification,” BioUtah Chairman Kelvyn Cullimore said. “I appreciate (Brooks) being respectful of the concerns of the business community.”
Also expressing support for the bill both publicly and during committee hearings are those who say they are opposed to vaccines in general. Brooks said he is not anti-vaccine.
“My family’s vaccinated with the COVID vaccine,” Brooks said. “All my kids get vaccinated. So I think vaccinations have a great place, but we do have to use proper process. They can tell you not to bring a gun on the property and I’m like, ‘You’re right.’ But with a vaccine, you can’t take it back out when you leave.”
Check out all of St. George News’ coverage of the 2023 Utah Legislature here.
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2023, all rights reserved.