Lawmakers halt bill to stop employer-mandated vaccines

(Source: http://bit.ly/1qc9uJw License: http://bit.ly/1PpGKT1)

INDIANAPOLIS (AP): Indiana lawmakers are pulling the plug on a bill that would prohibit employers from requiring workers from getting immunizations against COVID-19 or any other disease.

The measure, introduced by Republican Sen. Dennis Kruse, would have allowed employees to decline vaccinations for medical, religious, or reasons of personal “conscience.” They would also be allowed to sue an employer that required immunizations as a condition of employment.

Republican Sen. Phil Boots, who chairs the Senate Committee on Pensions and Labor, said Wednesday there would be no additional hearings or committee votes on the bill.

10 COMMENTS

  1. Why did this get Stopped?

    Such a terrible Bill, Right?….The Rights of the individual continue to get whittled away.

    If everyone who wants the vaccine gets the vaccine, why must I be required [by anyone] to get it?

  2. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Feel free to not get your vaccines but your idea is against the Preamble of The Constitution. Government has a right to enforce vaccinations to keep the masses safe from disease. This is literally one of the excuses people use to not allow immigration or refugees – disease. But it’s okay for citizens to not be vaccinated because of personal rights? The cognitive dissonance is frightening.

    • Since you asked the question…Yes, it’s ok for citizens not to be vaccinated because of “personal rights”, as outline in the Constitution identifying the Rights of an individual or “personal Rights”.

      Thanks, but your permission [not to get the vaccine] is irrelevant since any adult can make their own decision. Can you make your own decision, or do you need the Government to give you instruction?

      I love it when people attempt twist things to “better” their agreement, however, Citing the Preamble is irrelevant as it is just a general statement. I never hear Congress or the Supreme Court say “This is against the Preamble!!” LOLOL

      Also, I notice you didn’t provide a reason as to how my idea is “against the preamble of the Constitution”, other than…

      “This is literally one of the excuses people use to not allow immigration or refugees – disease.”….. immigrants or refugees are not Citizens therefore they can require them to get vaccinated to “Provide for the Common Defense” as a condition to enter this Country.

      “…to keep the masses safe from disease. “…Not written in the Preamble (or Constitution)… try again.

      Hey, don’t stop at the Preamble….I encourage you to actually read the rest of the Constitution as it is well written and the foundation of this Country.

      If you would actually read the Constitution, you would notice its a document limiting the powers of government, and acknowledging the Right of Individuals given by God.

      The future of this Country does not look well if your kind of reasoning is being mass produced in schools.

      • I agree.
        COVID is not worth ruining livelihoods over forced vaccination.
        It’s incredible, isn’t it, that there are people willing to force and coerce medical treatment on others. There are studies that have shown keeping Vitamin D levels high is enough to reduce symptoms of COVID or prevent it. Why the jump to the vaccine over other treatments?
        There’s something else at play here that has nothing to do with a virus. $$ for pharma, $$ for politicians, $$ for big business? And just like the mask mandates, this is about money and control, under the guise of keeping people safe.
        I don’t trust the government as a general rule, they rarely have your best interest at heart. Providing for the general welfare does not mean taking away a person’s right to choose what is best for them. It means providing the vaccine in this case, or other treatments, and making it available for those who want it. I don’t want to be FORCED to take a vaccine or any medication and I can’t believe anyone would want to force medical treatment on another. I am deeply disturbed by what I see happening here in Indiana and across the world.

        • What does that ruling say? Do you know…it doesnt say mandatory vaccines by the government is in the constitution. What you’re telling me is you dont know the difference between Whats in the Constitution, and a judgement as to If it violates the Constitution.

          The problem with cases like this is like asking the Government to limit its own powers… about liked asking the police to police itself…doesnt work very well does it?

          It turns this country into “in government we trust” in lieu of “in god we trust” as it was founded.

          But hey, I’m sure you believe the government has your back at all times, right?

          • I understand now why we are at an impasse and I can see that a wrap-up of our stances is necessary for others to view but no further discussion is warranted between us at this time.

            1. In God We Trust is our current motto, not “as it was founded.” E pluribus unum was our first motto. Out of many, one. It was speaking of the states coming together to form one government and was based on Cicero’s statement, “When each person loves the other as much as himself, it makes one out of many…”
            2. I am willing to make the risky assumption that my interlocutor’s reference of God twice in our discussion means they believe in a deity of some sort. Ideally that would mean they support a love of people as much as they love themselves and would want to get vaccinated to save lives. Even if my assumption or my idealism is untrue, point 3 is valid in this discussion.
            3. I have read Jacobson v. Massachusetts and while it does say the the United States does not derive its powers from the Preamble. (But my argument was never that we should use the Preamble for laws. It was to show the irony of Constitutionalists being so focused on the Constitution they ignore why it was written.) The Constitution provides the Court with the power to make decisions as to whether something is against the ultimate law of the land or not. It is in the Constitution that we defer to the Court to make these judgements, not ourselves. (“The problem with cases like this is like asking the Government to limit its own powers… about liked asking the police to police itself…” This seems to imply a lack of trust in law enforcement and in the Constitution itself as it is the document that defines the role of the Court. If a governmental law isn’t against moral law, then we should show respect for the governmental law.) The Court held in Jacobson that “in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” and that “[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.” (Quoted from Wikipedia but you are welcome to read the actual decision to verify.)
            4. The statement about minorities and women voting was a slam against some on the extreme right that believe all amendments following the 10th should be repealed. It was unfair of me to use this argument as it created a strawman about what my interlocular believes when I could not possibly know what was in their heart.
            5. I appreciate our ability to avoid negativity, ignoring a misunderstanding that led to a personal attack on me and half of the country. (“People that reach that far off topic are the true ones with racism and sexism in their hearts.” “…disgusting Democrats…”)

            Thank you for engaging in a mostly thoughtful conversation.

      • My wife would also like to point out minorities and women couldn’t vote if we listened to your advice.

        “…Not written in the Preamble (or Constitution)… try again.”

        • You and your wife are way out in left field by making that comment. So you are indirectly calling me a racist and sexist for disagreeing with you? Thats pathetic. People that reach that far off topic are the true ones with racism and sexism in their hearts.

          But you and your wife must be thanking all those Republicans for going to political war (and literal war) against those disgusting Democrats so that the individual rights and freedoms minorities and women should have had in the 1st place could be made a official.

          Also, “…Not written in the Preamble (or Constitution)… try again.” is a true statement. Thats why its still is debated

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here