My public records vaccine vote was made to protect employees

I have come under a lot of fire for my vote on House Bill

3-B, which created a new public records exemption. Much of that criticism has featured misguided assumptions and has questioned my integrity.

Let’s get one thing clear:

I voted for the bill because I thought it was the right thing to do. Not because of any political favor or campaign contribution but because I believe it was necessary after the Legislature passed House Bill 1-B, which created new restrictions on employee-mandated vaccinations.

I have been on record as being very much against the entire special session call. It was a political stunt to boost the governor’s brand with his far-right constituency and further his own ambitions.

Nearly every bit of policy that came out of this special session was anti-science pandering to his base.

I don’t believe we should bar private employers from setting the terms of their employment — including requiring vaccines for their employees. But when the Legislature passed a bill to do exactly that and create a complaint process, that created two big issues.

The first is that there may be legitimate complaints against an employer that involve an individual’s personal health information or sincerely held religious beliefs.

I think most of us can agree that no one deserves to have that level of personal information brought under public scrutiny. Even employers would want to protect that information so their employees would not be exposed to public ridicule or retribution.

The second issue — and this is what I spoke about on the floor — is that many companies will still require vaccines within the confines of this new law and be unfairly targeted by anti-vaxxers.

We’ve seen the way disinformation spreads quickly, and we could easily see dozens or hundreds of complaints filed against a private company that is just trying to do the right thing to protect its customers and employees.

I believe it’s important to protect these companies from these types of claims being made public before an investigation has been concluded.

I understand there were discussions that defeating the exemption would show the Democrats’ power and bring the entire package of bills down. It’s a great theory, but I have to operate in the real world.

When the governor’s anti-vaccine bill passed, I believe that made it necessary to protect the private information of individuals and the names of companies that could face retribution for requiring vaccines.

When the governor’s anti-vaccine bill passed, I believe that made it necessary to protect the private information of individuals and the names of companies that could face retribution for requiring vaccines.