© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
RINO legislators in Idaho are so "conservative" that they believe the government can use taxpayer funding to manufacture, promote, cajole, absolve of liability, and censor its way into lying about a vaccine — and somehow businesses following that very guidance is considered a "private" decision. That would come as news to the thousands of Idaho business owners who suffered under Gov. Brad Little's restrictions for months without a legislative response. These RINOs only seem to support private enterprise when it's being backed by — not when it is facing — the fist of government.
GOP leaders in the legislature have thus far rebuffed an effort by conservatives to convene an emergency special session to prevent employers from mandating the experimental injections on employees, a gross violation of the Nuremberg Code. "The basic principle, that I think is a pretty strong principle within the Republican Party, is less government interference is the best and so when you decide you're going to go in and tell the private sector to do something it better be for a very good, very good reason," said Idaho Senate President Chuck Winder in rebuffing a special session.
This comes after the state's two largest health systems, Saint Alphonsus and St. Luke's, announced that every employee must be vaccinated, spawning a backlash of protesters at the state capitol last week. Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin, who is also running for governor against Brad Little, is publicly calling on the legislature to hold a special session dealing with vaccine coercion and informed consent.
The response from the Republicans, who control the Senate 4-1 and the House nearly 5-1, is that a private business can do whatever it pleases and they oppose "regulation" of private contracts. Really? That would come as news to those shut down for over a year by Brad Little's COVID orders. It would also come as news to those who abide by endless ADA laws regarding discrimination based on health status.
Pursuant to the ADA (36.201), no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services, without retaliation or coercion (36.206), covering any condition, whether a physical or mental impairment (36.302.1), wherein mere presence does not constitute direct threat, even if contagious or noncontagious with transmissible diseases (36.302.b.2, 36.208). It's one thing to be leery of inserting government where it has never regulated before; it's quite another to create a carve-out for the most destructive health discrimination of all time.
Indeed, when it comes to employment and anti-discrimination law, the slate is not clean. Government has regulated every aspect of labor law; why should we make an exception when it comes to the most unjustified discrimination that in itself is dangerous and promoted by the government?
There is a moral hazard in suggesting that a "private" entity can mandate the most foundational violation of human rights. Can they force employees to take sterilization shots? Can they force them to walk around naked? And in the case of COVID, where studies have shown that ivermectin, when taken preventively, reduces the chances of getting the virus by 86%, can employers force its employees to take the drug?
There is no stated interest in forcing another person to get the shot that can even pass a rational basis test. Even according to the insistence of proponents of the injections that somehow the shots are still effective and safe, that means that someone's decision not to take them only affects that person alone. If the employer is concerned about the virus, he has every ability to obtain the protection for himself.
Moreover, it has now become clear that the vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of infection. Even our government officials are now conceding it only stops critical illness. Israel is experiencing a similar trend, and according to Hebrew University researchers, roughly 90% of newly infected people over the age of 50 are fully vaccinated.
Thus, there is literally no benefit from the standpoint of transmission and workplace protection to getting the vaccine. A vaccinated person is no less a risk of spreading the virus than one who is not vaccinated, even if we believe the shots prevent critical illness in the person vaccinated. Israel's latest COVID data shows that the new rates of infection nearly perfectly reflect the percentage of the population by age group divided by vaccination status. Incidentally, Israel's data show that most of the people sick with critical illness were vaccinated too.
Pfizer vaccine now completely worthless in Israel as >80% of all COVID-19 patients were previously vaccinated. Was it really worth it all the hardship, suffering, and death? Cases at low baseline but its clear vax is bust. Data from Israel Ministry of Health Dashboard.pic.twitter.com/oEkwCUZMbZ— COVID-19 Evidence-Based Clinical Response Panel (@COVID-19 Evidence-Based Clinical Response Panel) 1626403614
Then of course there are the side effects. Just last week, the updated VAERS data show over 11,000 reported deaths. The risks of myocarditis in young male employees being forced to vaccinate are much greater than the benefits the shot provides. And again, there is zero benefit to the other employees who are already happily and voluntarily vaccinated. Our anti-discrimination laws are replete with examples of prohibitions on employers to deny employment or service when the person's identity or behavior doesn't harm the company. Absent any evidence of "your vaccine protects me," there is no justification for such a mandate, especially when companies have been absolved from any liability stemming from such a mandate.
The reason conservatives support in principle the right to deny service or employment even when it could be discriminatory is because such behavior is organic and would be checked and balanced by a free and open market. But in the case of injection mandates and mask mandates, they came directly from the government. The government has:
- Funded the vaccines;
- Spent taxpayer dollars promoting them;
- Worked together with Big Tech to censor all information about them;
- Absolved the companies from liability;
- Distorted the marketplace to create a climate of fear without any informed consent about the problems with the vaccines or benefits of alternative treatments.
If Republicans in red states are now OK with this sort of fascism, it will be applied to every other issue. Unlike in Europe, they won't directly mandate them (although they did mandate masks), but they will work with the "private" sector to violate individual rights and even the Nuremberg Code. What if the government fosters a climate where every worker has to pledge allegiance to BLM? Is that OK too? Will we be leery of "over-regulating" businesses?
In a country that now mandates that mom-and-pop shops must provide services for gay weddings, conservatives should not stand idly by when entire industries can collude together and with government to block people from accessing all vital goods and services unless they follow a government-induced "guideline."
And speaking of mask mandates, isn't it peculiar how the hospitals are mandating that employees get injected even though they continue to mandate the masks as well? I thought the masks work.
Finally, it's quite convenient that Idaho Republicans suddenly discovered their libertarian streak when it comes to permitting businesses to collude with government to prohibit individual rights, yet they failed, with supermajorities, to block the government from downright closing businesses. After declining to call a special session for nearly a year of Brad Little's COVID fascism, they failed to override his veto on a very modest bill limiting the governor's emergency powers to 60 days. They also failed to pass HB 291, a business bill of rights that precludes any layer of government from ever shutting businesses or revoking licenses for staying open.
So, you can shut down businesses completely, but you can't merely tell them not to violate the Nuremberg Code against someone's passive state of being? Also, it's not like these same legislative leaders have even passed legislation banning public institutions, such as Idaho's state universities, from mandating vaccines either.
In talking down a special session, Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke told local media, "Call me an old-school Republican, but I think that the government that governs best is the government that governs least." But that is the strategy across the country in red state legislatures that has resulted in the most tyrannical government ever. Having the legislature, the body closest to the people, sit out from COVID, has allowed the health department bureaucrats to work with CDC to remake our country. The idea of a limited legislature was designed for a time when the governor and courts were even more limited.
Indeed, it's time for the Idaho legislature to convene marathon hearings with true experts to audit every decision the Idaho Department of Health has made based on a reputed scientific premise – be it masking, vaccines, testing, or protocol for treatment of the virus. If they can't grab the reins of power back from the despots during the most consequential executive power-grab of our lifetime, then they should all resign and abolish the legislature.There's nothing quite like a Republican who engages in intellectual sophistry to pave the road to despotism by clinging to notional straws of conceptual liberty that no longer exists.
Want to leave a tip?
We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Blaze Podcast Host
Daniel Horowitz is the host of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz” and a senior editor for Blaze News.