A legislative proposal to ban mask, vaccine and testing discrimination in Wyoming failed to pass the state House of Representatives this week.
House Bill 66 died on third reading Monday after an amendment was added to the legislation requiring the state to cover any federal medical assistance funds that might be withheld as a result of the proposed law – up to $848 million.
That dollar amount represents all of the federal medical funding that flows into the state on a biennial basis, Wyoming Rep. Lloyd Larsen, R-Lander, said, speaking in favor of the amendment.
But Wyoming Rep. Sarah Penn, R-Lander, referred to the appropriation as a “bailout,” claiming that the amendment attempts to “rescue businesses from poor choices in the past.”
“Hospitals and places throughout the state … have made poor business choices to allow their business to be controlled by an entity that sometimes controls 65 percent of their business, and when they change the rules, there’s nothing that you can do,” she said.
‘Explain that’
Larsen responded directly to Penn’s comment during his time at the microphone, pointing out that the “poor business decisions” she mentioned include the choice to provide medical services to people “who don’t have insurance” and “can’t afford health care.”
“So to make that correction in that business decision, (hospitals) would say, ‘Sorry, you can’t come here. We’re not going to provide help,’” he said. “So then where do those people go, if the hospital has changed their business model?”
The allocation amendment allows Wyoming to “respond as a state” if that situation arises, he said, inviting any legislators who “don’t want to provide those services to these populations in your community” to “explain that.”
Wyoming Rep. Ember Oakley, R-Riverton, supported the amendment as well, reminding her colleagues that the money would only be spent if the federal funding were withheld.
Criminal penalties
Oakley introduced her own amendment to HB 66 on second reading last week, restoring the criminal penalties that were originally included in the bill.
Those penalties had been eliminated on first reading – a move that Oakley said “seems absurd.”
“When you violate the law, there are consequences,” she said. “If we’re going to pass this law, we have to have the courage of our convictions, so the penalty provision should remain.”
She voted against HB 66 on third reading Monday, as did Larsen.
Penn and Wyoming Reps. Pepper Ottman, R-Riverton, and John Winter, R-Thermopolis, voted in favor.
Comments
Most of the Fremont County legislators offered comments on the bill when it came up on first reading last week.
Oakley talked about the importance of freedom to individuals and businesses alike, and she said “we’ve got to grapple with that” and “find compromises that work for everybody,” but “shackling some and imposing one set of values is not the way that we get there.”
Penn argued, however, that the state should “protect liberty first – liberty of the individuals, of the people.”
“If we’re saying that it’s OK to infringe upon liberties because we’re protecting businesses, or it’s OK to infringe on liberties because we need the funds that are going to come in if we don’t, we need to re-evaluate where our base is coming from,” she said. “We have a duty to step in when the rights and the individual liberties of people are being infringed upon, (and) there may be some struggles because of that, but we need to do the right thing by the liberty of our people.”
Ottman recalled stories of front-line workers who wanted to continue serving their communities during the COVID-19 pandemic but were unable to do so because of the health mandates that were in place.
“(HB 66) will give the citizens … the ability to say, ‘I want to make this choice myself,’” she said. “It’s trying (to) empower the people of this state to take care of their business, to take care of their families, and to do the things that they need to do.”
Larsen said businesses have “the right to make those choices (that are) best for them,” and individuals “don’t have to patronize those businesses,” or work for them, if they disagree with those choices.