Looks like it’s not just Assembly Bill A11179 anymore. There’s also A416, currently “in assembly committee”.
2. 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 or his or her delegee, including, but not limited to the commissioner or the 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 in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his or her delegee and complying with subdivision five of this section.
It starts off with the strong qualification “clear and convincing evidence” as if intended to lure you into a false sense of security before continuing “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.” Hmm… so we need “clear and convincing evidence” for a case that may not even be actual endangerment. Right. And if you “may be” a “suspected” case, then they can shove you off to a “medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises”—whatever those are.
The rest of the bill is about the conditions if the detainment is to last more than three business days. Setting aside the issue that the authorities may take days off but apparently not off of your detainment, it’s the usual waffle of supposedly limiting the number of days of further detainment and granting access to legal counsel etc. It doesn’t exactly inspire confidence given the circumstances.
It does end with this:
13. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to permit or require the forcible administration of any medication without a prior court order.
But one could force the administration of medication if there is a court order? In light of A11179, how is this supposed to be interpreted?
Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!
