What could possibly go wrong?
That’s right — what could go possibly wrong with legislation that would, if passed into law, grant the far-left governor of New York — or any government official or entity — the unilateral authority to detain anyone “indefinitely” even suspected of posing “a significant threat to public health”? No way could that be abused.
It hasn't gotten nearly enough attention that New York is considering a bill that would literally give the state the authority to detain people it considers "potentially dangerous to the public health"https://t.co/UxQUrRRsR5
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 20, 2021
You can read the bill on the New York State Senate website.
Here’s a relevant section (emphasis, mine):
Upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a case, contact or carrier, or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease that, in the opinion of the governor, after consultation with the commissioner, may pose an imminent and significant threat to the public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality, the governor of his or her delegee including, but not limited to the commissioner or heads of local health departments, may order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons by issuing a single order, identifying such persons either by name or by a reasonably specific description of the individuals or group being detained. Such person or group of persons shall be detained by a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his delegee.
In addition, reported The National Pulse on Monday:
The bill would “require an individual who has been exposed to or infected by a contagious disease to complete an appropriate, prescribed course of treatment, preventive medication or vaccination,” essentially giving the government the right to detain anyone they want and forcibly vaccinate them.
What’s next, COVID concentration camps? COVID Gestapo? Hyperbolic language? Sure, permanent detention facilities and those charged with dumping people in them at the whim of the government would never be labeled as such. To paraphrase Hillary, what difference does it make what we call them?
NY is proposing Assembly Bill A416 which reads“§ 2120-A. REMOVAL AND DETENTION OF CASES, CONTACTS AND CARRIERS WHO ARE OR MAY BE A DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH”. This will set a horrific precedence to lock up anyone that’s even suspected of being sick (1/2)https://t.co/MkJ5EwEvZd
— Arizona Libertarian Party (@Arizona_LP) December 19, 2021
Moreover, tell me far-left New York Gov. Kathy Hochul “might not” be tempted to use such power out of spite to punish political enemies, and I’ll tell you that you need to start paying a bit more attention to her goings-on. Or those of Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, or any other Democrat on a power trip. (Joe Biden last seen furiously nodding in approval.)
While the proposal suggests that no individual or group can be held for more than 60 days, the language allows for court orders to waive the maximum detention time. After 60 days, the court is allowed an additional 90 days to consider detention, a cycle that can last indefinitely per the opinion of the department.
The New York General Assembly will reportedly vote on the bill in the legislative session beginning January 5, 2022, according to The National Pulse.
New York Senate and Assembly set to vote on bill A416 that would allow the "removal and detention of cases, contacts and carriers who are or may be a danger to public health." pic.twitter.com/zLNlhg8nIg
— Anonymous UK Citizen (@AnonUKCitizen) December 19, 2021
Incidentally, COVID-19 isn’t specifically mentioned, suggesting anyone could be detained and held in isolation until deemed to be non-contagious from “anything.” HIV/AIDS? Flu season? The list could go on.
The only thing contagious here is the left’s hellbent desire to control all aspects of our lives.
In related RedState News:
Update: RedState has learned that the bill’s sponsor has announced that he is striking the enacting clause of the bill, which means that the bill will be withdrawn and not proceed through the legislative process.