As a result of anthrax floating around and journalists daily pondering what terrorist nightmare awaits us next, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), with the help of various other entities, drafted and released to the states the Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA). MEHPA has been billed as the blueprint for a long overdue revision of states’ health laws that will allow health agencies to better combat public health emergencies.
In light of the attack on September 11th, such an act appears necessary and helpful. However, while a review of current health safeguards may be in order, there are major concerns with many of MEHPA’s provisions. Already the Free Congress Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have sounded an alarm warning of the risks of MEHPA’s nationwide implementation.
Under MEHPA, governors are able to declare a state of emergency if there is an occurrence or imminent threat of an illness or health condition resulting from biological toxins or bioterrorism, or if there is an epidemic of some kind.
Once an emergency is declared, health agencies are permitted to:
Take control of health care and other supplies including rationing guns, gasoline, and food;
Seize and destroy property (either for treatment or to destroy as a threat to public health);
Isolate and quarantine individuals deemed to pose a threat to public health;
Access and distribute individual’s medical records; and
Compel individuals to have physical examinations and vaccinations (with refusal charged as a misdemeanor and punishable by quarantine).
MEHPA claims to balance civil liberties with public welfare, but close examination of the powers it grants should leave even the ACLU cringing (despite that organization’s past lack of concern for property rights).
With regard to compensation for property seized or destroyed, MEHPA provides for just compensation to the owner of property that is lawfully taken except "Compensation shall not be provided for facilities or materials that are closed, evacuated, decontaminated, or destroyed when there is reasonable cause to believe that they may endanger the public health . . ."
Mandatory medical examinations and forced vaccinations are also powers granted to un-elected health care officials under MEHPA. Those bold enough to assert their rights and refuse may be charged with a criminal act and be forcibly quarantined.
Proponents of MEHPA have tried to justify its drastic measures as a necessary "sign of the times" during this war on terrorism. While life has certainly changed and citizens are called to be more vigilant and cautious in the aftermath of the New York and D.C. attacks, the idea that eliminating our liberty and privacy is synonymous with our success against terrorism is truly ironic and frightening.
While MEHPA has some good features, it is an unacceptable threat to freedom. Its definition of "health emergency" is vague, and the powers it grants to governors and health agencies in such cases are too broad. The CDC has already declared HIV and Hepatitis infectious disease epidemics. Under the wording of MEHPA, the occurrence of these diseases would enable a governor to declare a state of emergency and put these powers into effect.
While states are free to adopt any, all, or none of MEHPA’s provisions, a major campaign is underway to assure its passage in all fifty states. Even Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson (former Governor of Wisconsin and known as a reformer) is strongly advocating the expansion of government powers through its adoption.
Many of our elected representatives seem eager to exchange our freedom for draconian measures that offer dubious security at best. Will Washington’s leaders fall prey to this power grab as well? Now is the time to be vigilant in our scrutiny of the expanded government powers being touted in the quest for safety. As Benjamin Franklin so wisely observed "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Jason Mercier is Deputy Communications Director for the Olympia-based Evergreen Freedom Foundation. He can be reached at (360) 956-3482 or jmercier@effwa.org
Contact: Jason Mercier, Deputy Communications Director, (360) 956-3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"