Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

NewsPolitics

Kansas Senate Bills Violate Informed Consent, Not Preserve It

It amazes me how many people are uneducated about their rights, including the right to informed consent and the right to refuse any and all recommended medical treatments. This includes individuals who are supposedly elected to serve the people and current and former practicing medical professionals and healthcare providers. Truth be told, they are not ignorant of patient rights or their own. These individuals have somehow determined “they” possess the authority to infringe upon individual God-given rights for the “greater good”.

In order to “uphold patients’ rights” and avoid the violations that occurred during the CONvid-1984 planned scam-demic, the Kansas Senate passed two bills (Senate Bills 352 and 391) that intend to “affirm the right of patients to direct their healthcare at medical facilities and would eliminate the state health secretary’s authority to issue directives amid outbreaks of infectious disease.”

The egregious portions of these bills will be covered interspersed with the Kansas Reflector article, with this portion covering Senate Bill 391 and part II covering Senate Bill 352.

The bills approved by the Senate built upon three years of statutory changes triggered by the international spread of a virus that contributed to the death of 10,200 people in Kansas.

Sen. Beverly Gossage, a Eudora Republican and chair of the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee, said Senate Bill 391 was important because it would place in the hands of 105 elected county commissions the power to respond to spread of contagious, deadly diseases.

She said directives issued in the past by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment secretary and some county public health officers were an overreach.

Somewhere along the line we gave them authority to give orders,” she said. “We want elected officials to give orders. It basically says, ‘Stay in your lane.’ Don’t give orders.”

Sen. Cindy Holscher, an Overland Park Democrat, said politicians with residual distrust of local and state health professionals due to decisions made during COVID-19 were unwisely concentrating authority in the hands of county commissioners. She said COVID-19 had receded as a public health threat and Kansas had put in place medical and religious exemptions for individuals who objected to government health mandates.

No other state has implemented this type of policy,” Holscher said. “This is an extreme bill that would be a very expensive, dangerous experiment to unleash on our population, especially our children.”

In Senate Bill 391, the first glaring problem occurs in Section 2 (a) (4) where it states, “The secretary of health and environment shall exercise general supervision of the health of the people of the state and may: make sanitary inspection and survey of such places and localities as the secretary deems advisable”. Does this mean the “secretary” can inspect and survey private residences? It doesn’t exclude private residents and doesn’t define “places and localities”. That seems to be left to the secretary’s discretion.

This bill does remove the authority for health officials to impose restrictions and only make recommendations. However, Section 7 (e) states, “If an outbreak of a highly contagious, deadly disease occurs, the local health officer {may} submit recommendations related to the isolation or quarantine of individuals {infected with such disease} to the board of county commissioners. The board or, if the board is unable to meet, the chairperson of the board or the vice chairperson of the board in the chairperson’s absence or disability {may take action to isolate or quarantine such infected individuals}.”

This removes authority to the public health officials, but places it in the hands of the board of county commissioners, or the board chairman or vice chairman when the board is unable to meet and when the board chairman is absent or is disabled. This does nothing to protect the people from quarantine or isolation mandates. Moreover, who determines what is a “highly contagious, deadly disease”? As we saw with CONvid-1984, the illness was less “deadly” than “influenza” and evidence has not produced proof of human-to-human transmission.

Whether people like it or not, the individual retains the right to refuse isolation or quarantine recommendations by any health authority, doctor, healthcare provider, or elected servants. The wording of this bill moves to give unlawful authority to a group of elected servants or just one to order an individual(s) to isolate or quarantine – basically to issue a mandate.

How does this protect patient rights and freedom? It doesn’t. And, it even authorizes public health officials to investigate and survey private residences. Remember, what is unsaid is as important as what is said.

The Kansas Reflector continued:

Sen. Mark Steffen, a Reno County Republican who worked as an anesthesiologist in Kansas, has for years sought a way to sever the influence of the KDHE secretary and county health officers in response to public health emergencies. He said the Constitutional Right to Health Freedom Act would limit the agency secretary to making recommendations about contagious diseases and how to prevent dissemination of infectious disease.

Under the measure approved 23-17 and forwarded to the Kansas House, county health officials could make recommendations to the county commission, which would possess the ability to order quarantine, isolation or treatment of people in an attempt to control disease spread.

An amendment offered by Sen. Rick Wilborn, R-McPherson, changed the bill to narrow the influence of county commissioners to outbreaks of “highly infectious diseases.”

Sen. Chase Blasi, R-Wichita, won approval of an amendment striking from the bill provisions that would prohibit a public or private employer from firing a worker or ordering the employee to isolate due to that person’s vaccination status.

The bill wouldn’t allow a public school board to order more than 40 hours of remote learning for students during a disaster.

Senate Bill 391 Section 6 (a) provides for the secretary of health and environment to determine diseases that are infectious and contagious in nature.

In reviewing the first supplemental note on this bill, Section (8) states, “A public or private employer would be prohibited from discharging an employee when the employee is following the LHO recommendation to isolate or quarantine or due to their vaccination status. Conforming amendments would be made to remove provisions relating to isolation or quarantine orders. The bill would also permit a civil action to be filed against an employer by an employee who has been discharged due to following a LHO isolation or quarantine recommendation or due to their vaccination status. A prevailing plaintiff would be allowed to recover actual damages sustained, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.”

This portion of the supplement was removed, meaning employers could discharge an employee for exercising their right to choose isolation and/or quarantine if recommended, under full informed consent, or the employer could terminate the employee based on “vaccination status”. An employer has zero right or authority to know someone’s “vaccination status.” Essentially, the Kansas Senate codified employers with the “right” to undermine an individual’s right to informed consent as well as the right to refuse.

When it comes to schools, the bill in Section 9 (a) (2) (c) prohibits public school boards from ordering “more than 40 hours of remote learning for students during a disaster”, unless a determination is made by the State school board the school cannot reasonably comply then the hours of remote learning can be extended to 240 hours. Why was that missing from the article? Moreover, schools can request waivers for the limited 40 hours of remote learning upon approval by the State board – Section 9 (a) (2) (c) (2) (d). States always give themselves an out.

How does any of this signify “health freedom” or preserve the rights of the people?

In the first supplement note, under “Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare”, this paragraph is found.

In the Senate Committee hearing on February 15, 2024, Senator Steffen, two attorneys, one medical professional, and seven private citizens provided proponent testimony stating generally their personal experiences with various entities. The proponents noted the limitations they felt during the COVID19 pandemic and, due to those experiences, why the change to a constitutional model of public health is needed. [Emphasis Mine]

Like the federal government, States have zero authority when it comes to the health of individuals or any form of public health. The establishment of public health entities is unconstitutional; therefore, there can be no “constitutional model of public health”. Asking for a constitutional model of public health citing needs is giving permission for the government to violate rights.

The second supplement to Senate Bill 391 proves the employment provision was indeed removed and does not appear in the finalized senate bill.

Most Americans were so traumatized by the actions of local, state, and federal governments, along with various public health agencies, that they are willing to allow their “rights” to be determined by legislation regarding usurped authority. Senate Bill 391 addressed only isolation and quarantine. It did not address the mandating of vaccines during the CONvid-1984 planned scam-demic or childhood vaccine mandates. The public is failing to recognize it is the unconstitutional State public health agencies that have “mandated” vaccinations for children to attend school only based upon a “recommendation” by an unconstitutional federal agency and some state public health entities mandated CONvid-1984 injections for its residents. Florida went so far as to pass legislation allowing the “forced” vaccination of residents under a public health emergency. Instead of standing fully on the right to informed consent, residents of Kansas were sold down the river by the State Senate under the guise of preserving rights.

Nothing proves that more than Senate Bill 352, which will be covered in the next installment.

Suzanne Hamner

Suzanne Hamner (pen name) is a registered nurse, grandmother of 4, and a political independent residing in the state of Georgia, who is trying to mobilize the Christian community in her area to stand up and speak out against tyrannical government, invasion by totalitarian political systems masquerading as religion and get back to the basics of education.

Related Articles

Back to top button