Sen. Mark Finchem strongly supported HB2248 passed by the Senate banning discrimination against those refusing medical interventions like vaccines. The legislation upholds personal liberty and Arizona sovereignty against government overreach.
Excerpted from the original article, published by KJZZ
Calling it a matter of individual rights, state lawmakers are moving to protect those who refuse to get vaccinated from being denied services or employment.
As approved on a party-line vote Monday by the Senate, HB 2248 contains a list of protections for those who refuse what the legislation calls “medical interventions.” And that is defined as any medical procedure, treatment, device or drug taken to prevent or cure a disease.
The focus of the debate, however, is clearly on vaccinations. Proponents argue that there are dangers from many inoculations, and that people should be able to protect themselves without fear of discrimination.
A version of the bill already has cleared the House.
But what makes this legislation stand out is this goes beyond whether people can attend school or go into government buildings.
The legislation also would make it illegal for any business to refuse to provide “any service, product, admission to a venue or transportation” solely because the person has not received or used a “medical intervention.”
HB 2248 gets more specific, applying it to any individual or entity that provides tickets to any “entertainment events,” including sports and concerts.
There also are provisions against employment discrimination by both government and private entities. And it also would ban any government entity or official from requiring someone be vaccinated to receive any government benefit, service or a license or permit.
Rep. Lisa Fink (R-Glendale) said her legislation is grounded in the Declaration of Independence, pointing out this is the 250th anniversary of the signing of that document.
“Our founders declared that all people are endowed with unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” Fink said. “This bill ensures that Arizonans are not forced to choose between their bodily autonomy and their ability to work, learn, travel, or to participate in public life.”
That theme was echoed by Sen. Janae Shamp (R-Surprise). “This is the United States of America,” Shamp said. “The government does not have any rights to tell anybody what kind of treatment they should or should not participate in.”
And Shamp, who is a nurse, said there are reasons to let people make their own choices without fear of repercussions.
“How many drugs have been pulled off of the market because they have been found to have efficacy and safety issues?” she said. “The time has come to stop shoving Big Pharma into our children and into our citizens. And we, as the government, absolutely have the right to say our citizens live in a free state of Arizona and in a free country of the United States of America.”
But Sen. Lauren Kuby (D-Tempe) said she has a different view of the role of state lawmakers.
“Aren’t we here to protect those most vulnerable?” Kuby said.
That is in line with testimony provided to a House panel by Dr. Regan Hill.
He told lawmakers that, at age 4, he was diagnosed with a rare variant of childhood leukemia requiring years of chemotherapy. That illness and treatment regimen, Hill said, meant he did not have a normal functioning immune system from the ages of 4 to 8 years old, leaving him vulnerable to a host of infections.
But he said his family wanted him to have the experience of going to public school, where teachers and others took care to protect him.
“Despite my bald head, the port (for medications) jutting out of my chest, and my steroid-bloated face and body, I got to learn math, reading and science as well as make memories with other children,” Hill said. “That would not have been possible if my classmates weren’t vaccinated.”
Shamp, in explaining her support of the measure, saw the issue of vaccinations through the lens of those who are being asked to get inoculated.
“How about the fact that we start talking about the fact that we no longer live in a time where measles kills children just simply because of the measles virus,” Shamp said. “We live in a time where we have treatment.”
[…]
Sen. Mitzi Epstein (D-Tempe) did not directly address the contention that people have a right to refuse vaccinations. But she pointed out that the state imposes conditions on people who want benefits from the government, like food stamps and temporary assistance for needy families.
“This is our societal construct, this is our contract with people,” Epstein said. “If they want to get a public benefit, such as going to a public school, using a public road, there are things they have to do. It is not outrageous to require children to get a vaccine to go to a public school when there are plenty of other private options out there if you want to make sure that your child can go to a place where there are no vaccines.”
And that, she said, goes back to the kind of example cited by Dr. Hill, where there are children who cannot be vaccinated.
“They desperately need us to keep a public school classroom as a safe place where their child can go and not catch a disease that could kill them,” Epstein said.
But Sen. Mark Finchem (R-Prescott) argued all that ignores the fact that vaccines can be dangerous.
The proof, he said, is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, a 1986 federal law which provides broad immunity to manufacturers for certain injuries related to vaccines. Designed to ensure an adequate supply, it set up a no-fault system, funded by a levy on vaccine doses, where victims can get compensation.
But it does not recognize autism as a vaccine-related injury, with studies saying there is no proven link and that any increase over the years is due to better diagnosis and reporting. Finchem, however, claims there is research linking vaccination with autism.
“That wasn’t disclosed to parents before their kids were given any kind of vaccination,” he said.