For those of you who watched my video on the SCOTUS OSHA decision, you'll know that I was more pessimistic than others because a part of the decision was that the states had a right to make such a mandate rather than the federal government.
I warned that it would result in certain states, mostly blue coastal, would take the liberty to create their own mandates on their residents while most red states would not. Lo and behold California is first up to bat.
"Assembly Bill 1993, introduced by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, would require employees and independent contractors to show proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 unless the employee obtains an exemption for a medical reason, disability or “sincerely held religious belief.” Those who received an exemption would be required to be regularly tested."
Since SCOTUS has already said that they consider such a move lawful, if this is passed via the legislative process it is unlikely that any legal challenge would win.
This is why I insisted that any true "win" in this matter would be on the grounds of the individual autonomy enjoyed by each citizen. Thus far, though I have read many suits that bring up this point, none of the decisions I have seen have made so much as a peep in this regard.
"The bill comes as the latest effort by legislators to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace and increase vaccination rates among eligible populations. During a news conference Friday, Wicks said that while combatting the pandemic has posed a challenge over the last two years, one thing has become clear – “vaccines keep us safe.”"
This brings us to the second point I have made about these laws. The claim of the "slow the spread" needs to be gutted as an acceptable legal argument.
"The vaccine mandate for workplaces would remain in place until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “determines that COVID-19 vaccinations are no longer necessary for the health and safety of individuals,” according to the bill’s text."
And this goes to my third argument in regards to subjecting the governor and state legislature to the whims of a un-elected bureaucrat in DC. And let's be clear the CDC will not make any claim that "vaccination" are "no longer necessary". In fact they are currently trying to get these shots to be considered childhood immunizations which would provide total immunity to every and any "vaccine" producer.
"Senator Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, co-authored the legislation alongside Wicks and said the bill would help protect vulnerable populations against disease, particularly those who are immunocompromised and “depend on the rest of us” to get vaccinated."
Because these shots prevent transmission and infection.
Oh right. They don't.
"Thus far, the bill has won support from the Small Business Majority, who found in a recent poll that 47% of small businesses in the state already require employees to be vaccinated, and another 24% are considering instating a requirement. On Friday, the organization’s President and CEO John Arensmeyer said the bill would provide clarity for California businesses and “help them get back to normal.”"
I don't know how representative this Small Business Majority is but that polling reflects a couple of things:
1) They think they own you.
2) They will do anything, including f***ing over their employees in order get that paper.
I doubt this will fail, given the demographics of California. And I expect some other states to follow. After all SCOTUS gave them the green light.
