CORONA Democrat Blocks Senate Bill To Ban Mask Mandates Nationwide

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
Democrat Blocks Senate Bill To Ban Mask Mandates Nationwide

A Democratic senator blocked a bill introduced by Republican Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio to ban a federal mask mandate across the United States on Thursday.

The Freedom to Breathe Act, which would prohibit any federal mask mandate from being imposed on an airplane, public transit system or educational institution across the United States until the end of 2024, was introduced by Vance on Wednesday. Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts intervened after Vance attempted to pass the bill by unanimous consent, and claimed that local authorities should have the ability to impose mask mandates when required.

“The bill would undermine the ability of states, cities and towns across this country to make decisions about what’s best for their communities,” said Markey in remarks prior to his objection. “It would silence and hamstring public health experts who have guided our nation out of the darkest days of a pandemic that has killed 1,139,000 people in our country in three years,” he added.

WATCH: Sen. JD Vance just tried to pass a bill to BAN MASK MANDATES.
Senator Ed Markey blocked the bill on behalf of Democrats saying, “It would silence and hamstring public health experts who have guided our nation out of the darkest days of a pandemic…”
Give me a break. Of… pic.twitter.com/lpwr3CXcUN
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) September 7, 2023
“Doctors and experts are saying that Covid is coming back,” Markey noted.

Markey also accused Vance of hypocrisy regarding the bill, pointing to the GOP’s previous advocacy for states’ rights.

“This bill would violate a long-held belief in the Republican Party that states and localities should not be told what to do by a federal government removed from the realities that they’re seeing on the ground in their neighborhoods,” he said.

Vance’s bill would not ban state-imposed mask mandates, but would prohibit any federal funding from being used to enforce such a mandate, according to its text. It would also ban airlines, transit operators and educational administrators from excluding a passenger or student from their service merely because they’ve refused to wear a mask.

“A generation of schoolchildren have suffered speech and developmental disabilities because this country panicked instead of using its brain and forced toddlers and small children to wear masks,” Vance said.

Responding to Markey’s objection, Vance said that “we lost [Americans] in spite of some of the most aggressive masking policies in the world. If mandatory masking were to save our citizens, it would have already done so.”

He added that the legislation would not ban citizens from wearing masks on their own accord.

“Freedom is fundamentally respecting that you might have a different view than I do … not using government mandates to force our citizens,” Vance noted. “Our kids need us to not be chicken little about every respiratory illness.”

“End the mandates. End the panic. Let’s get back to common sense,” Vance concluded.
 

The Mountain

Here since the beginning
_______________
If Vance pulls the provision about educational administrators being prohibited from banning non-masked people, Markey's objection goes out the window. Everything else in that bill (as presented in this article) is purely to stop blanket mandates at the Federal level, but (unfortunately) Markey is right that local governments should still have the jurisdiction to impose health measures independent of the FedGov, to include their school districts. The provision about Fed money not being used in the enforcement of such things is fine, but local educational administrators are still local, and the FedGov needs to step the hell off.


ETA: or Vance can rewrite the education official clause to specify that it applies only to federal educational officials such as the Dept of Ed.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
I'm profoundly confused. I thought the bill was saying that the fed can't make mandatory a national directive. Markey blocked it because he says it violates states' rights. Have I read that wrong?
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
I'm profoundly confused. I thought the bill was saying that the fed can't make mandatory a national directive. Markey blocked it because he says it violates states' rights. Have I read that wrong?
Converse.

Bill WAS to make mandatory illegal, but Markey stepped in the way citing "local control."

Federal mandate can still happen (which is what Markey REALLY looks to preserve.)

Dobbin
 

The Mountain

Here since the beginning
_______________
I'm profoundly confused. I thought the bill was saying that the fed can't make mandatory a national directive. Markey blocked it because he says it violates states' rights. Have I read that wrong?

No, you have it right. There's a provision in the bill that forbids "educational administrators" from excluding unmasked students from schools purely on the grounds of them being unmasked. Unless the actual provision is a lot more specific than is being reported, that particular section would step on States' Rights, since a state could impose its own ban on nonmasked kids in schools, and this bill would override that. As far as I can tell, that's the only section that would actually interfere with States' Rights. That's why I pointed out that Vance just needs to rewrite that one provision. If he explicitly restricts it to just Federal officials in the Dept of Ed or similar bureaucrats, he's on safe ground. Markey is just taking advantage of one small provision to tie up the entire bill.


ETA: As Dobbin points out, the real purpose behind Markey's maneuver is undoubtedly to put the kibosh on the whole bill, since he like his fellow totalitarians wants nothing less than Federal-level blanket mandates that they can shove down the whole country's throat.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
No, you have it right. There's a provision in the bill that forbids "educational administrators" from excluding unmasked students from schools purely on the grounds of them being unmasked. Unless the actual provision is a lot more specific than is being reported, that particular section would step on States' Rights, since a state could impose its own ban on nonmasked kids in schools, and this bill would override that. As far as I can tell, that's the only section that would actually interfere with States' Rights. That's why I pointed out that Vance just needs to rewrite that one provision. If he explicitly restricts it to just Federal officials in the Dept of Ed or similar bureaucrats, he's on safe ground. Markey is just taking advantage of one small provision to tie up the entire bill.


ETA: As Dobbin points out, the real purpose behind Markey's maneuver is undoubtedly to put the kibosh on the whole bill, since he like his fellow totalitarians wants nothing less than Federal-level blanket mandates that they can shove down the whole country's throat.
Thanks to you and Dobbin!
 
Top