Re: Regulation #10-242: Communicable and Noncommunicable Diseases (IRRC #3490)
As a result of government actions taken during the pandemic, there is a widening gap between the purpose of public measures and the willingness of substantial portions of our population to put their trust in state advice and mandates. Pennsylvania cannot afford to repeat the errors made during a time of uncertainty and fear. Experience has taught us better.
The regulatory review process was established to provide a nonpartisan analysis of the appropriateness, cost effectiveness, potential economic burdens, and relative ease of implementation and compliance. In this case, the early reaction coming from our communities is understandably less than positive.
A letter submitted by Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chair Michele Brooks is a thoroughly documented listing of the problem areas in the proposed regulation. These include crucial matters such as definitions, information collection, reporting requirements, disease control measures, and more. I substantially agree with many of the points of potential contention she raises.
The state Department of Health possesses a wide range of powers granted through legislation over the years, but this does not grant them license to exceed those expressed powers under the cover of an emergency. I do not see how Pennsylvania can responsibly proceed until the concerns, questions, and confusion are addressed to public satisfaction and that of legislators.
As demonstrated in the AI debate, many families believe that privacy is being compromised by government surveillance and record keeping and sharing. Entering homes without a warrant, speaking to students without a parent present, accessing private health records, unilaterally imposing mask mandates, creating a statewide vaccination database and a birth defect registry – this regulation wades into treacherous waters on a series of sensitive issues.
Additionally, people who are struggling with rising prices are not going to accept more mandates where the economic costs are understated. I am recommending that the regulation in current form be rejected, so it can be revised to limit its scope consistent with the public interest. Additional time will allow state officials and legislators to hold forums to permit greater public input and promote understanding.
Thank you for your consideration of these points as you deliberate this consequential decision.
Senator Lisa Baker
20th Senatorial District