Iowa legislature passes a weak anti- “vaccine passport” bill

  • On to the governor — should she sign it?
  • How do supporters of vaccine passports in any setting square their support with the Federal and Iowa constitutions and  civil rights legislation?

On Wednesday the Iowa legislature passed limited restrictions on so called vaccination passports. The Senate acceded to House bill — House File 889 .  The Senate  vote was essentially along party lines at about 32 or so to 16.  It is now on to Governor Reynolds’ desk –  Should she and will she sign it?

Regrettably the legislation exempts health care entities in general from requiring proof of vaccination from visitors or personnel.  The exemption portends the inability of unvaccinated otherwise healthy family or friends to visit hospitalized family members or otherwise assist with their well-being in a healthcare setting. Of note is that health care workers have been among the most reluctant to get the vaccines, knowing or seeing the side-effects, reading the studies and epidemiology, knowing they are all experimental at this stage and the limited liability the producers enjoy, realizing the limited protection they may provide to evolving strains and the true limited risks for themselves and others if they are healthy, not to mention the availability of cures as the disease is 95+% survivable overall and even more so among the uncompromised.

Here are the core federal constitutional and legislative laws which are controlling. How do they square with any exemptions when out of religious and philosophical scruples and their own research people refuse mandatory COVID vaccinations?  Apart from those matters implications HIPAA is also s matter that would seem to disallow or at least severely control what health care providers can require and reveal about patients should a health care entity require COVID vaccination(s).

Laws that apply to all

Erie Insurance issued  this commentory as regards the broader topic of First Amendment rights

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII): This established that employers can’t discriminate against people because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The law also requires employers to reasonably accommodate applicants’ and employees’ sincerely held religious practices.    . . .

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA): This law makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information. Genetic information includes information about an individual’s genetic tests and the genetic tests of an individual’s family members, as well as information about any disease, disorder or condition of an individual’s family members (i.e. an individual’s family medical history).

These laws also make it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. Remember: Local or state laws might get more specific than these federal laws. Be sure to familiarize yourself with any laws unique to your area, and consult a lawyer for specific legal advice pertaining to your business.


SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(l) Prohibition of discriminatory use of test scores

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(m) Impermissible consideration of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment practices

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.

Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule  

Can a business refuse to do business with a person on account of  that person not having or failure to verify having beeb recipoient of a COVID vaccine/with race or religion (Lawblog,com)

The United States Constitution, Ist Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The United States Constitution, 14th Amendment:

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This entry was posted in UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *