►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
D
D
It
was
really
about
kind
of
what
employers
need
to
do,
and
employer
etc
how
employers
would
accommodate
or
look
at
federal
mandates,
and
it
was
employer
driven
and
actually
it
was
session
law,
and
it
occurred
to
me
that
there
was
little
in
there
that
was
about
employees
that
bill.
If
you
remember
it
sets
up
severance
pay
things
like
that,
but
what
I
wanted
to
do
is
actually
think
about
an
example
that
happened
in
my
own
community
and
a
corollary
in
some
way
to
hb1
that
was
more
employee,
centered
and
I'll.
D
Give
you
the
example
that
isn't
this
bill
honestly
all
right.
It's
not
this
bill,
because
this
bill
is
specifically
about
that
complies
with
the
special
session
being
about
vaccine
mandates,
but
the
other
bill
that
we're
not
going
to
consider
was
actually
something
that
happened
to
my
community,
which
is
we
had
public
health
orders
and
some
businesses
were
not
following
them.
D
What
happens
when
an
employee
feels
unsafe,
because
the
employer
is
not
following
a
public
health
mandate,
so
our
basic
unemployment
law
is
that
workers
are
not
eligible
for
unemployment
benefits.
If
there
is
what's
called
a
voluntary
quit,
that
is
typical
language.
That's
used
a
voluntary
quit.
You
don't
get
unemployment
right,
so
our
statutes
have
in
it
when
employees
are
eligible
to
collect
unemployment
benefits
when
there
is
in
the
language.
D
That's
used
in
the
law
is
constructive
discharge
so
when
there
is
a
constructive
discharge,
and
so
what
this
bill
does
is
simply
add
to
our
statutes
that
portion
of
it
in
relation
to
the
unemployment
benefits
when
a
worker
is
eligible
for
getting
unemployment
benefits,
an
additional
element
to
the
list
of
constructive
discharge
elements.
Sorry
so
for
in
most
states
allow
employees
to
collect
unemployment
if
their
work
situation
has
grown.
D
So,
for
example,
an
employer
cannot
ask
an
employee
to
do
something:
that's
illegal
right
and
if
an
employee
quits,
because
of
it
right
they're,
going
to
be
eligible
to
collect
unemployment
benefits,
there'll
be
all
sorts
of
other
kinds
of
proceedings
that
go
on
with
that
employer.
But
the
employee
can
collect
unemployment
benefits.
D
So
what
this
bill
does
is
simply
allow
for,
and
if
you
turn
to,
the
only
portion
of
the
bill
or
is
relevant
is
on
page
three,
because
the
rest
of
it
is
already
existing
law
that
it
says
that
an
employee
is
eligible
to
collect
unemployment
benefits
if
an
employer
fails
to
comply
with
any
federal
law
rule
or
prop
policy
promulgated.
In
response
to
the
covid19
pandemic,
including
a
vaccination
requirement
or
any
other
covaid
19
prevention
measure.
That's
good
cause.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chairman
representative,
with
this
and
unemployment,
okay,
we're
saying
that
a
health
department
mandate.
E
A
D
Yes,
madam
chair,
so
exactly
and
so
representative
ottman,
you
might
be
confused
a
bit
because
I
had
a
second
bill,
which
is
not
this
bill,
which
would
have
been
local
public
health
mandates.
That's
not
this
bill.
D
This
bill
is
specifically
about
any
federal
law,
rule
or
policy,
and
I
understand
there
will
be
an
amendment
that
I
will
accept
that
will
take
out
policy
so
that
you
have
a
written
federal
law
and
if
an
employer
fails
to
follow
that,
and
that's
not
withstanding
house
bill,
one
right
house
bill,
one
is
going
to
be
out
there
and
have
all
different
kind
of
state
rules,
requirements
for
employers
in
relation
to
the
federal
mandate
right.
But
that's
notwithstanding
what
we
do
with
house
bill
one.
D
E
Yeah
one
more
okay,
just
to
say
there
are
numerous
numerous
things
for
employers
to
do
so,
but
most
I
think,
most
employers
that
that
are
under
that
guys
aren't
they
federal
employers.
D
D
A
We
don't
have
this
rule
yet,
but
supposing
in
by
christmas,
there
is
a
rule
that
says
all
employees
of
nursing
homes
shall
be
vaccinated,
let's
just
suppose,
and
if
the
employer
chooses
to
not
enforce
that
and
the
employee
says
I
don't
I'm
concerned
that
I'm
going
to
catch
covet
from
my
employees,
because
the
employer
is
not
following
federal
regulations
for
cms
and
they
quit
they
will
be
eligible
for
unemployment
insurance.
A
That's
a
federal
rule
that
I
mean
anytime,
you
take
medicare
or
medicaid.
You
are
impacted
by
federal
rules,
so
what
the
bill
would
propose.
Is
that
equal
to
what
we're
saying
in
many
of
our
other
bills,
which
is
that
you
can
get?
I
mean
we're
trying
in
house
bill
1
where,
if
there's
an
attempt
to
have
people
be
eligible
for
unemployment
insurance
if
they
quit,
because
they
don't
want
a
vaccine.
This
is
basically
saying
you're
also
eligible
for
unemployment
insurance.
A
E
D
Madam
chair
representative,
ottman,
nothing
I
mean
a
worker
would
not
have
the
ability
to
use
this
constructive
discharge
argument
to
claim
unemployment.
There
would
be
no
rules
or
regulations
that
would
that
employer
wasn't
following
that.
The
worker
could
use
as
the
reason
for
their
honestly
voluntary
termination.
E
A
D
If
I
just
may
answer
more
of
a
kind
of,
I
think,
a
general
question
that
I'm
hearing
from
representative
ottman-
and
it
is
that
in
general,
wyoming
is
statute
light
we
don't
like
statutes,
we
don't
put
a
whole
lot
in
our
statutes,
and
so
when
it
comes
to
kind
of
exceptions
for
workers
to
be
able
to
get
unemployment
insurance,
we
don't
have
much
out
there
right
it
is.
Someone
can
get
unemployment
for
a
voluntary
quit
if
there's
a
domestic
violence
situation.
A
A
You
can
come
up
and
ask
the
question,
although
normally
we
don't
always
just
answer
people's
questions,
but
and
is
it
specific
to
this
bill?
Okay,
okay,.
F
F
So
as
it
stands
right
now,
what
I
understand
for
some
of
my
children
and
grandchildren
is
that,
if
they,
because
of
their
employer,
whether
it's
a
federal
employer
or
private,
a
corporation
which
is,
if
they
don't
get
a
vaccine,
they
will
forfeit
their
job
and
will
not
be
able
to
get
unemployment.
However,
what
this
bill
would
do
is
if
a
person
is
uncomfortable
that
their
employer
uncomfortable
fearful,
as
the
senator
said
that
their
employer
is
not
enforcing
a
federal
mandate
over
medical
decisions
of
other
employees.
A
Mr
graham
and
that's
that's
specific
to
this
bill,
however,
we
have
other
bills
that
we
are
dealing
with
in
this
session.
That
would
address
the
concern
that
you
had,
oh
of
that
other,
but
this
concern
is
specifically
about
unemployment,
for.
A
F
F
Am
I
understanding
that
my
question
about
unemployment
being
granted
to
a
person
who
is
fearful
because
their
employer
is
not
using
a
federal
mandate?
That
is
what
this
bill
is
about.
That's
correct!
Well,
that's
my
question.
It
seems
or
my
statement
my
observation
and
clarification.
I
believe
you've
clarified
it
that
if
someone
does
not
follow
putting
a
substance
into
their
body,
they
will
not
get
unemployment.
While
someone
who
maybe
did
get
a
substance
put
into
their
body
but
is
fearful
that
others
in
their
same
employment,
won't
they
will
get
unemployment
right.
A
C
I
I
Thank
you
if
you'll
introduce
yourself
for
the
committee
please
good
afternoon,
and
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
holly
mckeamy
simoni
and
I'm
with
workforce
services.
I
am
the
workforce
program
administrator
and
we
did
take
a
look
at
this
bill
and
the
ui
division
looked
at
it
closely.
I
I
A
A
A
Moved
by
clifford
seconded
by
connolly,
I
guess
you
can
second,
your
own
bill.
Are
there
amendments
on
the
bill
and
I
will
tell
you
committee.
I
have
one
on
page
three,
but
any
other
amendments.
The
page
three
is
the
only
action.
So
okay
committee,
I'll
tell
you
what
my
amendment
is
so
on
page
three
line
18,
it
says
an
employer's
failure
to
comply
with
any
federal
law,
rule
or
policy
promulgated.
A
My
amendment
would
be
to
after
the
word
law,
delete
the
comma
insert
the
word
or
and
then
delete
the
words
or
policy,
and
my
thinking
is
just
that
policy
is
not
really
defined.
It's
kind
of
vague.
You
know.
If
it's
based
on
you
know,
let's
say
dr
fauci's
tv
interviewer
I
mean
it
could
be.
You
know
it
could
change
too
regularly.
I
mean
at
least
a
rule
and
a
and
a
law
they're
in
right,
and
I
think
that
that's
what
we
should
be
complying
with.
A
A
D
Chair,
if
I
just
may
address
ms
graham's
comments
and
to
go
along
with
on
the
understanding
that
again,
I
brought
this
in
part
because
of
looking
at
that
hp1
and
that
hb1
looked
at
kind
of
one
employee,
not
the
other
right,
and
so
I
saw
this
as
a
necessary
corrective
to
hb1
and
this
didn't
fit
either.
D
I'd
look
to
see
if
this
would
fit
in
the
way
that
it
was
constructed,
and
it
just
doesn't-
and
so
this
to
me
is
one
of
those
if
it's
good
for
the
goose,
it's
good
for
the
gander
kind
of
arguments,
and
so
it
just
makes
sense
and
in
fact,
honestly,
it's
less
than
hb1,
which
sets
up
a
severance-based
system.
All
this
does
is
allow
for
an
individual
to
have
a
constructive
discharge
right,
a
good
cause
and
have
the
ability
to
collect
unemployment,
and
so
I
would
ask
for
the
committee's
favorable
consideration.
C
This
is
a
roll
call
vote
on
house
bill
1013
as
amended
unemployment
benefits,
failure
to
comply
with
federal
law,
representative
connolly,
representative
flitner,
representative
hallinan,
no
representative,
opman,
representative
romero,
martinez.
All
right.
I
apologize
madam
chair.
I
went
out
of
order
representative
lebeau.
C
Madam
chairman,
wilson
aye,
madam
chair,
we
have
four,
I
and
four
no
and
one
excused.
A
Right
and
the
excuse,
member,
isn't
that
left
no,
no
vote
so
that
fails
for
on
the
time.
Okay,
next
bill
for
our
consideration
is
house
bill,
1006
vaccine
requirements,
limitations
committee.
We
did
see
this
of
course
in
june,
and
there
is
some
slight.
A
There
was
some
slight
rewording
in
lso
as
they
drafted
it
up
and
I'll.
Just
point
out.
Let
me
just
see
there
was,
for
example,
on
page
three
line:
six
reasonable
accommodation
means
any
change
in
policy
process,
location
or
other
appropriate
measures
like
the
bill
that
we
looked
at
in
riverton
said
means
I
mean
that's
just
the
you
know.
I
think
there
was
a
slight
wording,
but
there
was
no
change
other
than
the
committee's
amendment
in
riverton,
which
was
to
strike
the
word
sufficient.
A
If
you
recall
that
that
amendment
passed
in
committee,
so
just
for
the
benefit
of
those
people
out
listening,
I'm
I'm
just
going
to
briefly
touch
on
the
components
and
and
then
we'll
just
proceed
into
discussion,
and
all
that
because
we
have
heard
this
before
so
those
of
you
out
in
the
audience
were
on
house
bill,
106
vaccine
requirements
limitations.
A
This
was
actually
sponsored
by
the
labor
committee.
It's
one
of
the.
I
think,
one
of
the
only
committee
bills
that
is
being
considered
in
this
special
session
and
the
reason
for
that
is
back
in
the
spring.
When
the
labor
committee
went
to
management
council
to
ask
for
allowable
topics,
we
being
the
labor
committee
and
having
foresight
said
we
want
to
discuss
immunization
requirements
and-
and
that
was
granted
to
us.
So
the
the
bill
was
drafted
to
be
honest,
I
drafted
it
and
then
had
lso
legal.
A
You
know
legally
do
it
and
we
discussed
it
at
the
labor
committee
in
june
and
it
was
passed
initially.
We
thought
that
it
might
be
suitable
for
a
special
session
if
we
had
one
in
july.
That
didn't
happen,
but
it
was
determined
by
lso
that
you
know
we
had
voted
on
it
for
special
sessions.
So
we
have
this
now.
This
bill
does
not
specifically
deal
with.
A
A
I
don't
know
you
know
it's
possible
that
there
might
be
amendments
somewhere
along
the
line
that
make
it
specific
to
covid.
Personally,
I
like
it
the
way
it
is,
but
that's
that's
not
up
to
me
so
just
so
that
people
can
hear
the
overview.
It
basically
has
four
separate
categories
on
page
two.
The
requirement
is
that
a
healthcare
facility
should
provide
a
reasonable
accommodation
to
people
wanting
to
visit
a
patient,
and
let
me
just
refer
when
we
saw
this
bill
in
june.
Lso
had
the
note
about
reasonable
accommodation.
A
This
is
an
existing
legal
concept
that
has
existed
in
law
for
probably
20
years,
at
least
since
the
civil
rights
act
of
1964
and
the
ada
hr
people
and
and
the
courts
have
dealt
with
the
concept
of
reasonable
accommodation
for
years,
and
it
is
not
doesn't
always
mean
the
same
thing.
What's
reasonable
for
an
employer
of
2000
people
is
not
necessarily
what's
reasonable
for
a
welding
shop
before
people.
So
those
are
that's
an
existing
concept
and
we
we
don't
attempt
in
the
bill
to
state
what
is
reasonable.
A
So
page
three
just
has
the
standard
definition
of
reasonable
accommodation,
page
four,
the
bottom
of
picking
up
on
the
bottom
of
page,
three
equal
enjoyment
of
public
accommodations.
This
goes
into
our
existing
public,
accommodations
law
and
and
I'll
just
say
for
the
audience.
A
Looking
at
some
of
the
executive
orders
and
laws
that
we
saw
nationally
in
the
spring,
dealing
with
vaccine
passports,
it,
it
seemed
to
me-
and
the
committee
agreed
for
the
most
part
that
they
were
not
balanced
in
that
people
have
people
citizens.
Patients
have
rights,
but
also
business
owners
have
property
rights,
and
so
the
bill
attempts
to
use
existing
legal
concepts
to
balance
those.
A
So
what
we
do
on
the
on
the
top
of
page
four
is
say
that
a
provider
of
an
essential
service
or
product
shall
provide
a
reasonable
accommodation
to
any
person
who
is
unable
or
unwilling
to
fight
proof
of
immunization.
Then
paragraph
one
beginning
on
line
seven
defines
a
special
service
or
product.
This
was
based
on.
What's
called
makes
codes,
which
is
a
national
occupational
codes.
The
cdc
had
used
that
list
of
codes
when
they
said
these
are
essential
services.
A
A
If,
for
some
reason
the
grocery
store
wants
to
say
you
can't
come
in
without
a
vaccine,
they
have
to
provide
a
way
for
you
to
get
your
groceries,
deliver
them
out
to
your
curb.
Whatever
your
your.
You
know,
your
pa
consult
needs
to
be
able
to
do
by
skype
or
refer
to
somebody
else
or
a
drive-through,
banking
or
whatever
it
is,
but
a
reasonable
accommodation.
There
are
some
things
you
should
be
able
to
get.
That's
that's
the
tool
that
we're
using
for
that
page.
Five
picks
up
mandatory
immunizations
for
children.
A
Now,
the
all
of
the
language
on
page
five
is
existing
language
and
there's
no
change
to
the
existing
language
there,
and
just
so
that
people
who
are
hearing
know
procedure
is
if
a
child.
If
a
parent
doesn't
want
their
child
to
be
vaccinated,
they
have
medical
or
re
or
religious
excuse.
You
can
go
to
the
county
health
officer
and
they
must
excuse
you.
The
child
can
still
go
to
school.
That
I
think
a
lot
of
people
have
not
realized
that
the
child
can
still
go
to
school
without
the
vaccine.
A
If
there
is
say
a
measles
outbreak
or
something,
then
the
school
sends
the
child
home.
That's
existing
procedure,
nothing
about
this
would
change
the
procedure
and,
interestingly
enough,
in
the
early
2000s,
we
had
two
wyoming
supreme
court
decisions.
That
said
that
there
were
two
separate
cases:
two
separate
parents,
two
separate
children,
two
separate
locations,
one
in
one
case
there
was
a
parent
who
wanted
a
medical
exemption
for
their
child
and
that
the
health
local
health
officer
wanted
more
explanation
tried
to
say
that
this
is
not
a
good
reason.
Your
doctor
had
a
bad
idea.
A
A
Would
that
pass
as
a
religious
exemption?
Maybe
not,
but
I
feel
that
it
is
still
an
ex
a
reason
for
a
person
to
get
an
excuse,
and
I
don't
I
don't
want
people
to
have
to
come
up
with
a
fake
religious
reason
when
they
didn't
really
have
one.
I
mean
I
try
not
to
encourage
people
to
lie,
and
so
that
was
why
we
put
in
personal
objection
turning
the
page
page
top
of
page
seven
there's
a
paragraph
about
an
immunization
shall
only
be
mandated.
A
This
is
specific
to
the
k-12
or
actually,
I
think,
the
probably
the
preschool
one
too
a
five-year
period
after
the
approval
of
the
vaccination-
and
I
will
freely
admit
the
committee
heard
this
before
I
just
pulled
the
number
five
out
of
my
pocket,
but
I
felt
that
that
it
was
a
good
idea
to
not
mandate
any
vaccine,
whether
this
or
some
future,
one
until
it's
been
in
existence
for
five
years
to
make
sure
that
the
children
are
protected.
Then,
on
the
bottom
of
phase,
seven
we
go
into
unfair
employment
practices.
A
This
is
the
current
section
of
statute
title
27.
We
have
a
number
of
things
that
are
whether
they're,
unfair
or
not
and
again
here
it's
a
it
would
be
considered
an
unfair
employment
practice.
If
an
if
an
employer
requires
in
immunization,
then
we
have
basically
existing
type
exemptions,
starting
in
line
17.
A
Unless
the
employer
can
demonstrate
that
it
would
create
an
undo
hardship,
which
is
existing
legal
statute
for
anything,
you
know
you
have
to
make
reasonable
accommodation,
let's
say
for
a
person
who
is
for
a
woman,
who's
pregnant
or
for
a
a
muslim
who
doesn't
want
to
deliver
beer.
That
was
an
actual
case
in
chicago.
A
If
there
is
an
undue
hardship,
let's
say
the
muslim
beer
driver
is
the
only
truck
driver
you
have,
and
that
would
be
an
undue
hardship.
Those
are
examples
or
a
direct
threat.
Direct
threat,
not
a
hype,
necessarily
a
hypothetical
threat,
I'm
not
an
attorney,
but
that
cannot
be
eliminated
or
reduced.
I'm
on
line
21
by
re
means
a
very
reasonable
accommodation,
so
again
we're
using
existing
legal
concepts
of
reasonable
accommodation,
we're
not
creating
new
legal
concepts
in
the
bill
and
then
on
page
8
line
18
adds
religious
or
personal
grounds.
A
A
The
whole
thing
like
you
know
if
you
were
a
vegan
or
something
or
other-
and
you
know
I
just-
was
trying
to
be
fair
to
people's
objection
categories
not
make
them
fit
into
so
so
committee.
That's
a
reminder
of
the
bill
and,
as
I
say,
it
was
amended
in
our
labor
committee
meeting
to
take
out
the
word
sufficient
other
than
that.
It's
the
bill.
You
already
know
and
love
any
questions
from
the
committee.
A
No
all
right
is
there
any
testimony
from
the
audience
just
kind
of
come
up.
We've
got
three
chairs
up
there,
so
sort
of
three
people
at
a
time
can
come
up
and
present
introduce
yourselves
and
we'll
just
kind
of
work
through
and
just
and
while
I'm
hang
out
over
here
before
we
start
you
just
check
and
see
in
case
we
have
a
lot
of
concave.
A
A
Hopefully
everyone
in
the
room
doesn't
have
10
minutes
worth
to
say
we're.
I
want
us
to
stop
by
5
30
of
public
comment
so
that
we
may
work
the
bill
and
be
done
before
we
all
fall
asleep
or
something
so
just
kind
of
a
warning
there.
The
room
is
not
doesn't
look
too
from
donna.
Do
we
have
anybody
online
to
testify
for
this
bill.
C
Madam
chair,
if
you'd
like
to
instruct
any
attendees
to
raise
their
hand,
you'd
like
to
testify
right
now,
there
are
no
hands
up.
A
Okay,
if,
as
far
as
people
by
zoom
two
they're
now.
A
Out
in
the
audience,
how
many
people
are
there
that
want
to
testify
in
this
bill?
Well,
not
too
many,
okay,
good!
Well,
that
doesn't
mean
you
can
have
20
minutes,
and
let
me
just
also
say-
and
I
before
we
start
here
just
because
you
know
there
are
probably
people
here
who
have
not
been
in
committee
before
it's
important-
to
focus
your
testimony
on
the
specific
bill
before
us.
A
So
if,
if
the
topic
is
in
the
bill-
and
of
course
these
are
all
about
vaccine
mandates,
so
you
probably
can't
get
too
far
astray
but
let's
say
don't
bring
in
something
like
federal
employees
or
the
military
or
something
because
that
isn't
a
topic
of
this
bill,
so
just
kind
of
kind
of
refine
yourself.
A
Okay,
I
think
that's
all
the
comments
that
I
have
to
say
welcome
and
introdu,
we'll
just
start
with
these
two
gentlemen,
because
they
kind
of
came
by
themselves,
man
and
then
I'll
go
with
you
if
you'll
introduce
yourselves-
and
I
met
you
in
the
hall
this
morning,
although
you
had
your
masks
on
then
so,
I'm
not
entirely
sure
but
introduce
yourselves
to
the
committee.
If
you
would
please.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
Members
of
the
communities,
is
your
thing
it
is.
I
might
need
to
speak
closely.
Thank
you,
madam
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
grady
hutcherson,
I'm
a
24-year
classroom
teacher
at
the
elementary
level
and
I
now
proudly
serve
as
the
president
of
the
wyoming
education
association.
K
I'm,
madam
chairwoman,
members
of
the
committee,
my
name,
is
tate
mullen.
I'm
the
government
relations
director
for
the
wyoming
education
association.
I've
got
a
few
written
statements.
Sometimes
I
just
do
better.
That
way.
I
promise
I
will
keep
it
brief
and
then
I'd
like
to
add
lib
a
little
bit
at
the
end.
Okay.
So
the
one
word
in
this
bill
in
the
amendment
to
section
214309,
has
some
substantial
potential
public
health
and
safety
implications
for
our
schools.
K
The
fact
of
the
matter
is,
is
that
those
exemptions,
the
ones
that
we
have
in
there
are
there
for
a
reason,
this
language
expands
that
to
too
far
broad
of
a
category
that,
basically,
those
objections
are
there
and
the
reason
that
we
have
these
vaccination
mandates
is
because
of
decades
of
science,
of
what
what
it?
K
One
of
the
very
fundamental
pieces
that
we
always
had
to
teach
our
students
was
that
none
of
our
rights
are
absolute
and
once
you
start
getting
into
some
of
the
complicated
nuances
of
it,
you
realize
that
the
government
does
when
they,
when
there
is
a
substantial
risk
to
public
health
and
safety,
they
have
the
ability
to
intervene
and
what
we
have
seen
and
the
reason
that
we
have
those
vaccine
requirements
is.
We
saw
what
happened
when
we
did
not
have
those.
K
We
expand
this
to
a
personal
objection
and
basically,
what
that
does
is
just
let
somebody
for
any
reason
decide
that
they
may
not
want
the
vaccination.
J
Madam
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
I
just
want
to
share
a
little
bit
of
personal
of
a
personal
story
with
you
all,
having
taught
second
grade
for
over
two
decades.
I
can
share
with
you
that
elementary
schools
are
often
referred
to
as
petri
dishes.
J
There
are
lots
of
germs,
and
it's
I
I
share
that
just
because
I
have
that
experience.
I've,
I've,
I've
seen
what
happens
every
year
during
the
cold
and
flu
season.
J
We
know
that
these
mandates
for
vaccinations
are
to
protect
our
students
and
all
of
the
employees
within
our
schools
and
by
adding
with
the
proposed
amendment,
to
just
add
personal
objections
and
potentially
undermines
the
entire
vaccination
system
and
and
the
rationale
for
it
at
our
public
schools,
and
because
of
that,
we're
then
putting
at
risk
our
students
and
education
employees
and
because
of
that,
we're
very
concerned
with
with
the
amendment
in
the
bill.
So
thank
you.
Questions,
representative
stubber.
L
L
K
Can
get
my
microphone
working,
mrs
chairwoman,
representative
cyborg,
we
shouldn't
confuse
those
two
okay
again,
I'm
going
to
come
back
to
the
idea
that
that
is
throughout
constitutional
case
law,
that
if
there
is
a
public
health
and
safety,
if
there's
a
substantial
public
health
and
safety
cause,
governments
can
step
in,
and
we
have
seen
what
happens
when
they
don't
step
in.
K
If
we
didn't
have
these
vaccines,
what
we
have
seen
time
and
time
again
and
we've
seen
it
sporadically
throughout,
is
that
you
have
pockets
of
sick
students
and
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
object
to
this
is
we
know
what
happens
when
students
miss
school
because
of
illness.
Now
we
know
this
isn't
going
to
cure
all
the
ill
illness.
That's
not
the
point.
The
point
is:
is
that
when
students
are
sick,
when
they
miss
school,
it
detrimentally
impacts
their
performance.
A
So
I
do
have
a
question
about
that
and
I
I'm
looking
I
have
my
computer
here,
but
so
not
half,
but
maybe
a
third
of
the
states
now
do
have
personal
exemptions.
So
I
see,
for
example,
that
colorado
allows
not
just
religious
and
medical,
but
also
personal.
So
do
you
know
I
mean
is:
are
the
number
of
unvaccinated
children?
Is
it
higher
in
colorado?
I'm
just
trying
to
look
at
the
surrounding
states.
A
A
A
K
Mr
chairwoman,
I
do
not
have
that
information.
I
can
look
and
see
if
I
can
find
that
and
provide
that
for
you.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
hello.
I
appreciate
your
concern
about
all
of
this,
but
I
I
do
have
a
couple
questions.
First
off.
E
With
a
mandate,
well,
no
just
say
there
there's
a
health
problem
that
we're
all
concerned
about.
Why
would
that
not
be
able
to
be
handled
by
the
county
health
person
and
then
given
to
the
individual
districts?
E
E
Publications
I
did
see
things
and
one
thing
I've
been
trying
to
find
out
is
where's
the
wea
as
far
as
what
is
your,
what
is
your
position
and
what
are
your
actions
on
protecting
your
the
teachers
that
want
this
health
freedom,
because
it
is
not
proven
one
of
the
things
that
that
I'm
concerned
about,
I
guess
is,
is
the
thing
is
that
the
teachers
that
I
know
are
all
very
dedicated
people
they
they
work
tirelessly
they
work
endlessly.
E
A
E
The
information
that
I've
read
that
has
been
put
out
from
you,
so
I
guess
what
I'm
asking
is:
what
positive
steps
are
you
taking
through
the
wea
to
make
this
work
other
than
requiring
that
all
people
get
an
inoculation?
K
All
right,
this
is
chairwoman
and
representative
batman.
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
reiterate
a
great
point.
You
made
our
teachers
do
work
countless
hours,
they
work
incredibly
hard
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
has
gotten
lost
in
transition
over
the
past
year.
A
year
ago,
we
were
heralding
our
educators
as
heroes
and,
unfortunately,
what
we
have
seen
in
the
past
year
is
they
have
come
under
fire,
so
it
is.
It
is
incredibly
frustrating
for
us
to
see
that,
but
we
are
greatly
appreciative
of
all
of
our
educators.
K
We
have
within
our
membership
the
gamut
within
a
school
right
and
the
structure
of
our
organization.
We
have
esps,
we
have
paraprofessionals,
we
have
locals
within
each
district.
We
have
local
leaders,
we
have
presidents,
we
communicate
information
to
them.
We
provide
opportunities
to
to
determine
what
is
going
on
in
in
your
district.
What
are
your
concerns?
What
are
you
seeing
as
problems.
K
Question
absolutely
we
work
tirelessly
with
our
local
leaders
to
make
sure
that
we
are
addressing
their
issues
within
their
districts
and
we
we
do
a
lot
of
surveying.
We
do
a
lot
of
outreach
to
our
members
throughout
the
state
and
every
district
to
make
sure
that
we
are
representing
their
interests,
as
well
as
their
health
and
safety
and
health
and
safety
of
our
students.
L
Thank
you
miss,
madam
chairman,
sir
representative
lautman
brought
it
up.
This
is
not
a
vaccine.
This
is
an
inoculation.
I
mean
look
at
the
difference,
so
you
know
where
I'm
going
with
this
one
right.
The
coven
19
vaccine
for
their
sales
vaccine
is
an
inoculation
because
it
takes
more
than
one
shot.
So
you're
just
concerned
with.
A
A
M
Personal
grounds
versus
religious
exemptions.
What,
and
if
you
can
give
me
just
kind
of
a,
I
guess,
a
summarized
short
form:
what
has
the
your
department
done
or
the
wyoming
the
education
association?
What
have
you
guy?
What
has
your
group
done
to
reach
out
to
get
the
the
take
of
the
faith-based
community?
K
Mr
chair,
mr
chairwoman,
what
we
have
done
is
again
this
is
this
is
talking
to
our
broad-based
membership
right.
We
do
have
members
that
have
applied
for
religious
exemptions
and
with
the
eeoc
language
around
religious
exemptions.
We
have
no
problem
with
that
whatsoever,
so
that's
something
that,
if
that's
something
they
want
to
pursue,
that's
something
that
they
will
pursue.
Our
objection
to
this
is
strictly
only
to
the
personal
objection.
K
N
Sorry
about
that
I
am
a
nurse
and
a
paramedic,
and
I
first
of
all
I
would
like
to
say
thank
you
for
adding
the
personal
clause
to
this.
I
have
a
lot
of
co-workers
who
say
I
don't
want
the
cova
vaccine
based
on
religious
exemption,
but
I
don't
want
it
so
I
don't
want
to
lie
like
you
were
saying,
so
I
appreciate
that
grounds
in
there
and
also
protecting
the
rights
of
parents
to
do
the
same
for
their
kids.
N
Some
concerns
that
I
have
your
clause
that
talks
about
trying
to
find
it
the
five
years.
I
appreciate
trying
to
add
something
for
the
safe
to
prove
the
safety
of
the
vaccines.
My
concern
is
that
this
I
think
it
needs
to
be
more
specific.
N
I
think
we
need
to
add
something
that
specifically
addresses
that
there
have.
It's
been
proven
that
there
are
not
excess
deaths,
excess
disability
or
other
similar
things,
because
we're
already
seeing
with
the
covid
vaccines
with
previous
vaccinations,
such
as
the
h1n1
vaccine,
it
was
discontinued
after
51
deaths
we're
at
17
000
per
the
bears
website.
N
A
N
For
jenny
and
if
I.
G
N
Thing
the
the
section
that
talks
about
the
public
entities-
I
I.
N
Number
you're
on
it
doesn't
have
page
numbers
on
you.
It's
just
the
very
beginning,
part
that
talks
about
essential
services
provided
and
and
acceptable
accommodations.
Okay,
my
concern
with
this
section
is
that
in
healthcare,
healthcare
privacy
is
a
sacred
thing.
We
have
hipaa
to
protect
that.
To
me,
this
sets
a
precedence
that
these
public
entities
would
even
be
allowed
to
ask
vaccination
status
in
order
to
provide
a
service,
and
I'm
very
concerned
with
that,
as
it
seems
it
would
be
a
gateway
to
a
vaccination
type
passport.
B
Madam
chairman,
thank
you
and
I
just
have
a
comment.
We
hear
in
the
legislature
a
lot
from
individuals
who
represent
organizations
and
it's
really
a
breath
of
fresh
air
to
have
a
citizen
all
the
way
from
sublet
county.
I
know
how
far
away
that
is.
So
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
testify
in
front
of
this
committee
today.
Thank
you.
N
The
vares
website,
which
records
adverse
effects,
reports,
17,
000
and
actually
a
harvard
study-
shows
that
that
only
catches
approximately
one
to
ten
percent
of
what
actually
happens.
N
L
N
A
The
questions
for
jane,
okay,
great
thanks,
very
much,
okay,
we'll
let
you
swap
out
we've
got
two
new
folks
and
just
a
reminder
to
people
as
the
we
have
sort
of
a
legislative
procedure
just
to
make
sure
everybody
stays
organized
and
always
make
sure
to
go
through
the
chair.
So
if
I'll
call
on
you
and
then
even
if
and
then
I
you
can
see
how
I
call
upon
other
people,
then
answer
me
first,
even
though
you
know
it
wasn't
me
that
asked
the
question.
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
and
then
answer
the
question.
A
That's
just
kind
of
our
process
keeps
everybody
orderly,
hey
introdu.
Are
you
together
or
just
happen
to
be
sitting
next
to
each
other?
Okay,
I'll
just
start
from
my
left
man,
then,
if
you
just
introduce
yourself
for
the
committee
and
yes
press
the
button
right
there
kind
of
closest
to
the
end,
and
can
you
hear
me
we
can
hear
you
great
thanks.
Q
Okay-
madam
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you.
My
name
is
april
kranz.
I
am
a
resident
of
laramie
county
and
I
am
an
internal
medicine
and
pediatrics
physician.
Okay,
I
have
several
comments
here,
which
I
hope
will
sound
somewhat
organized.
Q
The
first
thing
I
want
to
say
is
that
I'm
hearing
a
confounding
in
the
discussion
of
personal
objection
to
the
covet
vaccine
with
what
what
is
my
understanding
of
the
the
body
of
the
bill,
which
is
actually
talking
about
personal
objection
of
exemptions
or
require
required
childhood
vaccinations
already,
and
so
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
is.
That
distinction
is
clear.
I'm
sure
there's
lots
of
people
who
have
personal
objections
to
the
coveted
vaccine,
which
no
one
is
talking
about,
making
that
a
mandatory
vaccine
for
children
at
this
time.
Q
So
I
don't
think
that,
though
you
know,
that's
really
a
relevant
argument
at
the
moment.
Also,
the
primary
thing
I
want
to
say
is
that,
with
the
advent
of
just
rampant
misinformation
available
on
the
internet
and
social
media
base,
in
which
basically
any
statement
that
anyone
wants
to
say
can
be
promoted
and
repeated.
As
fact,
this
personal
objection
clause
lowers
the
bar
way
too
much
and
makes
it
too
easy
to
put
our
children
in
our
communities
in
danger
by
diluting
herd
immunity.
Q
I
don't
think
that
personal
objection,
which
is
becoming,
I
would
say,
culturally
kind
of
a
fad
to
have
a
personal
objection
to
just
about
any
mandate
or
recommendation
from
a
learned,
scholarly
body,
I
think,
is
going
to
really
put
us
on
thin
ice
when
it
comes
to
very
serious
health
health
consequences.
That
can
be
that
that
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
if,
if
this
goes
forward,
also,
I
I
don't
think
personal
objection
is
especially
because
vaccines
are
not
100.
Q
Effective,
no
vaccine
has
ever
been
100
effective
and
when
you
choose
not
to
vaccinate
your
child
they're,
putting
it's
putting
everyone
around
them
at
risk
because
that
child,
the
neighbor
who
may
have
been
vaccinated,
there's
no
telling
if
they're
going
to
be
the
one
who
the
vaccine
doesn't
work
for,
or
they
have
a
complicated
medical
condition
that
that
makes
it
such
that
vaccines
are
less
likely
to
be
as
effective
in
that
person
that
that
person
is
also
at
risk.
Q
And
and
if
we
look
at
the
vaccinations
that
are
currently
required
for
school
children,
we're
looking
at
polio
and
diphtheria
and
pertussis
and
measles
the
again
herd
immunity
such
that
you
know.
So
many
people
are
vaccinated
that,
even
though
these
vaccines
are
not
100
of
effective
in
each
in
every
individual
is
keeping
us
safe
as
a
community
is
keeping
our
children
safe,
and
I
think
any
anything
that
puts
that
protection
at
risk
is
a
bad
idea.
Q
Q
But
what
there
is
no
ambiguity
about
it
all
is
that
this
vaccine,
the
covet
vaccine,
definitely
definitely
protects
people
from
severe
disease
and
hospitalization
and
death,
and
so,
when
we're
talking
about
a
pandemic
that
is
putting
stress
on
our
local
healthcare
resources.
I
think
it's
very
relevant
to
be
talking
about,
even
though
this
the
vaccine
doesn't
doesn't
offer
a
hundred
percent
protection
as
an
undo
and
even
less
than
100.
You
know
far
less
than
100
protection
against
infection
and
being
contagious
with
the
delta
variant
of
covid.
Q
I
think
it's
still
very
important
to
recognize
that
this
is
vaccination
is
pr
is
protecting
our
healthcare
resources
and
keeping
keeping
us
at
least
in
the
black
as
far
as
not
being
yet
in
a
position
where
we're
having
to
ration
health
care,
nobody
wants
to
get
there
another.
Q
I
think
my
last
comment
here
is
that
the
five
years
when,
as
you
admit
it,
is
an
arbitrary
time
frame
and
I
think
it
is
far
more
important
to
really
be
very
specific
about
the
science-
that's
going
to
be
involved
in
any
future
contagious
disease
that
vaccines
are
going
to
be
indicated.
For
I
think
it's
very.
Q
I
think
it's
dangerously
short-sighted
to
put
a
time
frame
like
that
on
this
now,
where
you
know
yes,
we're
in
a
pandemic
now,
but
that
says
nothing
about
what
could
be
the
next
big
infection
that
comes
down
the
pipeline
or
what
the
very,
if
there's
going
to
be
a
different
covert
variant
that
comes
around
you
know
a
year
or
two
years
from
now,
and
I
think,
especially
as
as
much
as,
of
course
it's
all
of
us
want
to
protect
children.
Q
It's
also
important
to
not
deprive
children
of
the
benefits
of
proven
therapies,
and
so
I
want
to
encourage
you
to
also
keep
that
in
mind.
Thank
you.
Questions
for
dr
krantz.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
dr
krantz.
Thank
you
very
much
for
being
here.
I
really
appreciate
you
coming
and
honestly
giving
us
a
medical
and
scientific
view
based
on
your
massive
education
and
experience
in
the
community,
and
so
my
question
for
you
is,
and
you
talked
a
little
bit
about
hurt
immunity,
that's
something
that
we
we
haven't
heard
much
about,
and
so
I
am
curious
about
what
you
think
will
happen.
D
Q
Madam
chairman,
I
do
think
that
we
will
see
more
kids
come
to
school
without
being
vaccinated
and
and
what
are
the
potential
consequences
for
that?
I
think
you
know
we
could
definitely
see
a
resurgence
of
measles
and
mumps.
I
mean
this
has
started
to
happen
around
the
country
already
in
in
small
pockets.
I
I
think
to
invite
those
incidents
to
come
to
our
state
is
a
mistake.
Q
D
Q
Vaccines,
I
will
have
to
plead
that
I
don't
do
primary
care
pediatrics
anymore.
I
do
hospital-based
pediatrics
for
the
past
four
years
and
so
we
don't
administer
vaccines
in
the
hospital.
So
I
can't
remember
having
done
so.
Okay.
A
So
if
I
can
then
follow
up
on
a
question
there
so-
and
I
I
don't
have
the
my
computer
screen-
has
gone
black
again
but-
and
I
didn't
have
it
up
this
time,
but
so
looking
at
the
department
of
health,
they
have
report
cards
for
each
of
the
districts
and
they
used
to
have
one
where
you
could
see
all
the
last
five
years
and
that
one
seems
to
have
kind
of
faded
into
backer.
You
have
to
really
search
on
it.
A
A
Excuse
me
evidently,
in
my
list
of
states
that
do
have
personal
exemptions,
which
I
counted,
and
I
forgot
the
number
already.
I
think
it's
like
20.
colorado
being
one
of
them
does
colorado,
have
a
lower
vaccination
rate
of
children.
I
mean,
as
far
as
you
know,
do
you
know
anything
about
that.
A
Know
I'm
sure
I
could
get
that
information
if
you'd
like
it,
it
would
be
interesting
to
know
I
mean.
Obviously
the
demographics
are
different
and
there's
you
know
so
I
wouldn't
know,
but
I
mean
it
would
be
interesting
to
see
if
the
states
that
have
personal
exemptions
in
existing
law
have
in
fact
lower
vaccination
rates.
I
mean
that
would
be
valuable
information
but
okay,
any
more.
Let's,
let's
keep
on
moving.
Remember
representative
batman.
E
E
And
dr
krantz,
what
what
I
was
wondering
is
with
this,
since
the
this
inoculation
has
been
in
production
and
everything
like
that,
and
it
was
done
relatively
quickly.
I
realized
because
of
a
crisis
but
the
since
the
clinical
trials
really
are
ongoing
and
we
are
part
of
that
as
people
with
the
inoculation
people
without
the
inocu
inoculation
different
age
groups,
and
things
like
that
going
on
what
what
I'm
wondering
is.
E
How
can
because
there's
different
expert
opinions
in
your
field
about
whether
or
not
this
is
a
good
idea
or
whether
it
isn't?
How
do
you
explain
or
or
help
me
understand
why?
It
really
should
why
there
shouldn't
be
exemptions.
Q
A
E
I
I'm
sorry
you
had
said
too,
so
this
will
go
along
with
that.
You
had
said
too,
we
may
have
outbreaks
of
measles.
Again,
we
have
well
that
hadn't
been
really
taken
out.
Is
that
because
of
so
many
incidences
of
people
coming
in
that,
don't
have
the
vaccines
that
we
already
require.
E
What
I'm
just
wondering
is
is
if,
since
there
is,
I
mean
I
know,
your
expert
opinion
is.
Is
this,
but
there's
other
people
that
have
other
sides
to
this
story,
and
I'm
just
wondering
how
can
we
differentiate
between
what
what
we
can
actually
positively
know
at
this
time
about
these?
E
E
Q
I
think
since
you're
it
sounds
to
me
like
you're
talking
about
the
the
covet
vaccine
and
I
I
am
not
specifically
seeing
that
we
should
not
allow
personal
exemptions
for
the
covet
vaccine.
I'm
saying
that
we
should
not
allow
personal
exemptions
for
existing
required
childhood
vaccinations.
A
So,
representative,
atman,
if
you
look
at
the
bill,
the
bill
on
page
six,
inserts
personal
objection
into
the
entire
immunization
requirement
statute,
it
doesn't
it's
not
specific
to
cobit,
like
some
other
bills
that
we
are
considering
in
this
session.
E
A
Amending
is
mandatory
immunizations
for
children
attending
schools-
yes,
okay
at
presently
in
this
state,
not
being
california.
In
this
state,
there
is
no
requirement
for
a
covid
vaccine
of
any
kind
for
children.
However,
we
are
because
we
drafted
the
bill
to
affect
everything
the
global
bill
of
the
world.
A
So
that's
why
people,
the
people
are
bringing
up
other
issues
like
measles
and
things,
because
we
are
amending
the
entire
k-12
vaccination
statute
if
we
want
to
make
personal
objection
only
suitable
for
covet
vaccine.
That
is
an
amendment,
but
right
now
the
personal
objection
is
amending
the
entire
peak
child
immunization
statute.
Okay,.
E
A
K
K
K
There
were
pockets
of
individuals
around
the
country
that
did
not.
They
got
polio.
Their
kids
got
polio.
Polio
now
does
not
exist
in
our
country
since
1979.
That
was
the
last
active
case
native
to
the
us.
It's
still
present
around
the
world,
but
any
cases
in
the
us
are
brought
in
they're,
not
native
here
vaccinations
work,
polio's
gone,
mmr
almost
gone,
but
not
quite.
K
Smallpox
is
gone
because
it
was
a
mandatory
vaccination
and
you
all
have
probably
read.
There
was
a
u.s
supreme
court
ruling
about
the
smallpox
vaccination
that
was
in
the
presence
of
an
epidemic
just
like
we're
in
an
epidemic
right
now,
pandemic
with
covid
and
the
u.s
supreme
court
said
that
there
is
a
benefit
to
the
community
that
supersedes
individuals,
freedom
to
refuse
the
vaccine
u.s
supreme
court
it's
a
long
time
ago,
but
smallpox
is
gone
on
this
planet.
K
That's
really
important
information.
So
all
of
these
vaccines
imagine
how
these
viruses
are
going
to
spread
and
grow
throughout
our
community
just
by
personal
exemptions.
Oh
thanks,
I
don't
want
a
vaccine.
Oh
I
don't
like
needles.
I
don't
want
my
kids
to
be
exposed
to
needles.
It's
going
to
be
so
traumatic,
but
the
benefit
is
to
the
greater
good
of
the
community,
our
state,
so
personal
exemptions.
I
really
don't
believe,
has
a
place
in
any
of
these
vaccinations.
K
So
that's
point
one:
when
school
opened
there
was
no
masking
there
was
last
year
and
not
only
was
it
effective
at
allowing
the
schools
to
stay,
open,
kids
didn't
get
sick
and
when
kids
didn't
get
sick
parents
didn't
get
sick.
K
K
K
Vaccinations
are
even
more
effective,
more
effective,
and
I
think
we
should
push
them
rather
than
find
ways
to
exclude
individuals
from
getting
them.
So
please
take
that
into
consideration.
K
We're
looking
out
for
our
state
we're
looking
out
for
our
children
and
when
the
kids
are
sick,
parents
have
to
stay
home,
they're,
not
working
it.
It's
a
huge
cascade
effect.
L
All
right,
one
is
the
reason
the
numbers
were
high,
so
high
in
the
school
district.
I'm
sorry.
G
L
L
So
don't
vaccinate
all
right.
You
look
at
some
of
the
military
people
vaccine
records,
they
say
vaccine
a
vaccine
b.
We
don't
know
what
they
are
all
right
and
some
of
the
tainted
vials
during
the
gulf
war
had
microplasmae
all
right.
All
my
kids,
that
we
gave
the
kids
that
got
the
vaccines.
My
kids
all
ended
up
with
ms
diabetes.
L
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
dr
kenneth.
I
would
like
to
just
thank
you
for
being
here
and
I'm
sure,
you're
a
proud
papa,
and
for
your
testimony
and
coming
to
speak
with
us
today.
M
Madam
chair,
dr
trans,
I'm
wondering-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
could
walk
me
through
this-
I'm
not
a
I'm,
not
in
your
shoes
regarding
the
exemptions
is,
is
there
any?
What
can
we
do?
Is
there
anything
we
could
have
done
better
to
work
to
get
ethical
vaccines
down?
The
pike
there
had
there
seems
to
have
been
a
miscue
or
miscommunication.
M
The
individual,
from
the
department
of
the
education
group
had
said
that
they
do
everything
in
their
power
to
have
open
dialogue
and
represent
all
of
their
constituents,
but
it
looks
like
it
was
pretty
clear
from
the
beginning
when
they
started
the
work,
even
though
there
had
been
a
lot
of
protocols
in
the
process
for
decades.
M
Obviously,
a
lot
of
different
doctors
that
we've
seen
online
and
through
television
that
have
been
working
even
some
individuals
have
been
working
for
a
vaccine
of
vaccines
that
will
just
get
rid
of
all
versions
of
covet
in
future,
and
I
don't
know
that
you
could
answer
this,
I'm
just
what
I
think.
It's
kind
of
I
don't
know
the
right
animal
to
say
that's
in
the
room,
but
basically
it's
just
this
underlying
issue
with
exemptions.
M
I
guess
what
could
we
do
maybe
not
have
done
better,
but
what
can
we
do
now,
since
we
can't
retrofit
the
past
or
whatever?
But
what
can
we
do
now
to
try
to
address
issues
people
may
have
regarding
exemptions
and
regarding
ethical
vaccines,.
A
Question
well
I'm
going
to
ask
you
so
are
you
asking
dr
krantz
to
su
to,
and
I
didn't
hear
what
your
specialty
was,
but
to
talk
about
going
forward,
different
ways
to
develop
vaccines
that
might
fit
within
existing
religious
and
medical
exemption
requirements?
Or
I
mean
I'm
sorry.
I
didn't
really
understand
what
you're
asking
him
to
it's.
M
M
A
M
Like
your
trim
down
yeah,
so
what
can
we
do
today
and.
A
K
Chairwoman,
my
bad,
that's
no
chairman
so
probably
must
be
15
or
20
years
ago.
You,
you
may
have
all
heard.
K
So
now,
sir,
an
answer
to
your
question.
K
Vaccines
have
been
in
development
and
we'll
talk
about
covet
right
now,
so
the
covert
vaccine
was
in
development
six
seven
years
before
we
got
it
for
kovit
that
type
of
vaccination,
so
it
was
studied
before
it
got
its
emergency
designation
because
that
was
for
coveted,
but
the
type
of
vaccine
has
been
studied
and
it
has
been
determined
to
be
safe.
It
just
wasn't
used
before
because
we
didn't
have
those
viruses
in
order
to
widely
distribute
them,
like
the
ebola
virus,
for
example.
K
So
are
there?
Are
there
methodologies
out
there
for
developing
other
vaccines?
Well,
you
probably
read:
there's
this
capsule
that's
going
to
come
out,
that's
better
than
a
needle.
We
think
is
it
going
to
be
as
effective?
Is
it
going
to
be
as
safe?
We
don't
know
yet,
but
we
know
that
we
are
all
part
of
this
study
and
for
those
of
us
who
have
gotten
the
vaccines,
we
think
we've
made
the
proper
choices.
K
I
don't
know
that
there
is
necessarily
an
answer
to
your
question,
sir.
Maybe
okay.
A
Let
me
just
say
that
I
do
see
representative
steinberg
committee:
let's
try
to
condense
our
questions
that
are
so.
We
can
really
get
people's
opinions
specifically
on
this
bill.
If
we
attempt
to
research
covet
around
the
world
and
diseases
of
the
last
20
years,
we
will
be
here
a
lot
longer
than
5
30
and
I'm
cutting
us
off
at
5
30,
and
we
don't
want
to
exclude
some
people
from
being
able
to
testify
representative
steiver.
Do
you
have
actually
a
question?
Yes,
I
have
active
questions.
Okay,
all
right.
K
K
Sir,
but
you
asked
about
variants,
so
we
had
the
original
coronavirus.
We
have
the
delta
variant
now,
there's
a
lambda
variant
in
brazil.
There's
an
alpha
variant
in
england.
We
think
that
the
current
vaccines
are
effective
against
all
of
these
variants.
We
do
not
know
how
effective
they
are
going
to
be
and
there
will
be
future
variants
as
well.
L
Okay,
my
understanding
now
is
most
of
the
people,
that's
in
the
hospital
here
and
I
have
documentation
that
they
were
all
vaccinated.
The
majority
of
them
were
vaccinated
in
february.
L
K
Madam
chairman,
dr
chris,
so
just
this
morning
I
received
the
information
I'm
on
the
hospital
board
at
huron
cheyenne.
So
I
have
access
to
the
actual
information.
There
are
34
individuals
in
the
hospital
28
are
unvaccinated,
six
are
fully
vaccinated
of
those
34,
12
are
in
the
intensive
care
unit
and
11
are
on
ventilators.
K
A
Yep,
okay,
I
think
we're
thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention
not
that
we're
going
to
see
any.
I
don't
blame
either
of
you
doctor's
crown,
so
I
apology
we're
sort
of
we're
all
we're
all
trying
to
gather
interesting
information.
We
love
this
committee,
it's
so
interesting.
Okay,
yes,
ma'am!
Thank
you
man!
Q
I
wanted
to
just
address
one
of
the
questions
that
I
think
my
dad
didn't
about,
that
I
heard
about
a
doctor
in
cheyenne
recommending
against
the
covid
vaccination,
and
I
I
do
want
to
respond
to
that-
that
we
are
aware
that
there
are
doctors
and
other
health
care
providers
in
our
community
and
and
throughout
the
state
that
are
giving
bad
information
about
kovid
and
it's
one
of
the
things
that
we're
working
toward
toward
correcting
and
actually
disciplining
people
who
are
spreading
misinformation
about
covid
in
that
is
harming
patients
in
a
pandemic.
Q
A
A
F
My
name
is
susan,
graham
I'm
a
resident
of
laramie
county,
I'm
also
a
doctor
of
naturopathy.
I
homeschooled
seven
children
and
filed
for
immune
exemption,
immunization
exemptions
for
all
of
them,
and
I
know
from
the
existing
statute
that
there
are
already
rules
in
place
for
when
there
happens
to
be
an
outbreak.
F
My
children
would
have
been
brought
back
home
if
I
had
them
in
school
programs.
So
there's
already
wonderfully
stated
statute
that
that
is
in
place
for
pockets
of
infection
that
might
arise.
I
greatly
appreciate
the
personal
objection
option
and
I
appreciate
that
you
keep
that
in
there.
I
wanted
to
address
as
a
naturopath
the
accommodations
portion
in
regards
to
essential
businesses,
especially
when
it
comes
to
best
helping
my
clients.
F
To
that
point
also,
I
understand-
and
I
do
appreciate
that
you're
trying
to
find
a
balance
for
business,
corporation
rights
and
individual
rights
in
this
session.
I
do
appreciate
that
I
would
like
to
bring
to
your
attention
in
our
constitution.
It's
already
present
article
10,
section
5.,
and
I
have
been
in
contact
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office.
F
Doing
public
records
requests
to
find
out
which
corporations
in
the
state
of
wyoming
doing
business
actually
have
their
certificates
of
authority
because
on
the
application
for
the
certificate
of
authority,
as
well
as
a
certificate
of
authority
itself,
it
states
that
every
corporation
doing
business
in
the
state
of
wyoming
will
assent
to
the
law
of
the
land,
which
is
not
statute.
Actually,
the
law,
the
land
is
our
state
constitution
arc,
1,
section
38
part
a
so
menards,
for
example,
would
interfere
with
my
shopping
experience
and
accommodate
me
by
doing
my
shopping
for
me.
F
F
F
Oh
yeah
and
it's
already
been
covered,
the
approval
of
the
five
years-
and
I
understand
you,
you
kind
of
pull
that
out
to
get
this
legislation
on
the
on
the
board.
Appreciate
that
now,
when
it
comes
to
clinical
trials
phase,
one
phase
two
phase
three
of
experimental
drugs,
including
biologics,
which
are
what
these
mrna
vaccines
and
even
the
johnson
johnson
now
particularly
packeted.
F
The
clinical
trials
generally
take
anywhere
the
phase
two
phase:
three,
not
the
phase
one,
even
which
is
the
animal
trials
which
we
didn't
have,
but
the
phase
two
phase
three
usually
take
anywhere
from
eight
to
ten
years
themselves,
so
anywhere
from
start
to
finish.
Any
experimental
drug
is
supposed
to
have
a
13-year
trial.
So
I
would
suggest
that,
rather
than
five
years
for
any
approval
of
a
drug,
an
inoculation
vaccine
that
we
would
extend
that
period,
at
least
as
long
as
a
clinical
trial
would
have
taken
place.
E
Representative
batman,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
taking
your
time
to
come.
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
come
and
I
I
appreciate
all
of
the
the
background
information
that
you've
provided.
Thank
you.
Any
questions
on
the
right-hand
side.
A
I
will
just
say,
mr
graham
so
one
one
thing
regarding
the
the
five
years
so
again
committee,
I'm
looking
at
the
top
of
page
seven.
This
is
this
is
after
the
period
administered
by
the
immunization
safety
office
within
this
within
the
cdc.
A
A
But
the
point
is,
the
cdc:
doesn't
put
them
on
the
school
on
the
pediatric
list
until
the
completion
of
the
clinical
trials,
so
this
would
actually
be
after
the
completion
of
clinical
trials.
The
other
statement
I
did
want
to
just
say,
as
far
as
the
businesses
is
that
many
businesses
in
wyoming
are
not
corporations,
and
so
they,
you
do
not
necessarily
have
to
have
any
secretary
of
state
authorization
for
a
business.
A
A
C
Just
to
have
a
little
change,
I
now
have
a
total
of
three
with
their
hands
up.
Okay.
Well,
let's
do
all
three
we've
had
more
than
three
here,
we'll.
A
C
S
S
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
name
is
brian
warren
and
I'm
with
the
biotechnology
innovation
organization,
and
we
represent
biotechnology
companies,
including
them
the
developers
and
manufacturers
of
vaccines
and
at
bio.
We
stand
for
behind
science
and
we
believe
that
immunization
policies
should
follow
the
best
available
science.
S
S
I'm
trying
I'm
going
to
try
to
skip
some
other
things
in
the
interest
of
brevity,
because
I
know
a
lot
has
been
covered.
I
do
want
to
point
out,
though,
that
the
american
academy
of
pediatrics
estimates
that
vaccination
the
vaccination
of
a
single
year's
cohort.
S
So
basically,
all
the
kids
born
in
a
year
saves
42
000
lives
and
that's
for
every
single
year
of
children
being
born
and
vaccinated
and
prevents
as
much
as
20
million
illnesses.
Of
course,
that's
across
the
country,
I
should
clarify
they
also
vaccines,
save
money
because
avoided
illnesses
and
deaths.
S
Overall,
that
saves
as
much
as
13.5
billion
per
year
and
six
point
in
direct
medical
costs
and
68
billion
in
total
societal
costs.
So
that
includes
things
such
as
when
parents
have
to
take
time
off
work
and
their
employers
are
bearing
that
brunt
of
those
that
their
children's
illnesses
no
vaccine
is
100
effective.
I
think
that's
been
stated
and
as
well
as
the
fact
that
not
every
single
person
can
receive
a
vaccine.
You
have
immunocompromised
individuals
who,
unfortunately,
are
unable
to
receive
vaccines
and
which
is
why
vaccines
work
best.
S
We've
heard
about
it
today
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
talk
about
that
as
well
during
the
covet
19
discussion
in
this
country
to
address
some
of
the
questions
that
I'm
sure
you
have
actually
asked
states
with
personal
belief,
exemptions
have
lower
immunization
rates
than
those
who
do
not.
For
example,
colorado
has
lower
immunization
rates,
at
least
on
mmr
and
tdap.
I
it
interestingly,
it
looks.
I
was
just
looking
at
the
cdc's
data
and
it
looks
like
wyoming
has
a
lower
varicella
vaccination
rate.
S
I
don't
know
exactly
why
their
cell
is
on
the
list
of
required
vaccines.
Some
of
the
variations
there
can
exist
because
of
reporting
differences.
However,
but
there
are
other
states
which
which,
with
much
higher
exemption
rates
and
we've
all
there's,
also
been
studies
of
states,
including
texas,
and
I
think
it
was
arkansas
where,
after
the
creation
of
a
personal
belief,
exemption
the
vaccination
rates,
the
vaccination
rates
decreased
I.e.
S
So
we
also,
I
would
like
to
say
that
we
object
to
the
five-year
waiting
period,
because
we
are
aware
of
no
actual
evidence
for
this
need
for
a
need
for
this.
The
dual
regulatory
role
of
the
fda
and
the
cdc
create
a
global
gold
standard
of
in
ensuring
the
safety
and
effectiveness
of
vaccines
in
the
united
states
state
level.
Regulations
such
as
a
five-year
waiting
period
is
unnecessary
and
we
believe,
put
students
health
at
risk
right
now,
wyoming
has
a
school
immunization
program
that
works.
S
There
are
already
medical
and
religious
exemptions
in
in
wyoming
and
actually
overall,
wyoming
is
about
average
in
the
country,
and
this
is
average
being
a
good
thing
in
terms
of
actually
trying
to
meet
the
herd,
immunity
thresholds
and
based
on
actually
based
on
those
rates.
S
I
think
that
maybe
you
were
right
that
the
vaccination
rates
that
were
on
the
65
percent
for
mmr
there
must
maybe
there's
a
reporting
error
there,
because
I
don't
that
that
does
seem
to
be
inconsistent
with
the
data
in
terms
of
statewide,
immunization
and
wyoming,
but
anyway,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
your
time,
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
we
respectfully
do
oppose
this
bill.
Okay,.
A
A
The
information
on
the
vaccination
rates
and
for
the
states
that
have
I
counted
them
up,
there
are
19
with
personal
exemption.
Could
you
email
that
to
me
my
email
address
is
sue.wilson
at
wyolege.gov
I
mean
if
you.
G
A
On
the
wyoming
legislative
page,
you
can
you
can
find
that
easily
enough.
I
would
really
you
know
where
we'll
be
in
session
for
another
week
or
so,
and
that
I
think
that
would
be
really
helpful.
I
would
appreciate
that,
if
you
could
do
that.
S
Yes,
madam
chair,
I
will
do
that.
I
know
that
there
are
some
studies,
as
I
mentioned,
on
how
immunization
rates
have
changed
after
the
creation
of
a
new
non-medical
exemption
and
there's
also,
some
of
that
is
just
based
on
the
cdc
and
its
morbidity
mortality
weekly
report.
They
periodically,
I
think,
maybe
it's
annually.
They
report
immunization
rates,
and
I
know
that
I
think
it's
ncsl.
S
The
national
conference
of
state
legislatures
has
a
really
convenient
chart
that
may
have
been
what
you
were
looking
at,
that
lists
which
states
have
medical
religious
as
well
as
personal
belief
exemptions.
So
I
can.
I
can
send
you
all
of
that
that.
E
Would
be
super
representative
outman?
Did
you
have
a
question?
Yes,
ma'am
chairman
I'm
and
please
excuse
my
I'm,
not
a
scientific
person,
but
what
I'm
wondering
is
how
do
you?
How
do
you
get
to
the
point
where
you
can
say,
there's
47
000
people
that
didn't
get
this?
How
do
you?
How
do
you
come
to
that
conclusion
of
people
that
didn't
get
something
and
the
other
thing
I
was
wondering
about
was
well.
I
have
to
think
about
that.
S
S
The
study
I
was
referring
to
because
it
looks
at
a
single
year's
cohort
of
children
was
done
by
the
american
academy
of
pediatrics,
and
I
believe
that
what
they
look
at
is
historical
trends
in
terms
of
where,
where
the
pr
the
incidents
of
illness
prior
to
vaccine
vaccine
becoming
available
as
well
as
after
becoming
available,
I
can
send
you
that
study
and
I
can
try
to
see
if
I
can
come
up
with
a
more
concise
and
well-informed
description
of
exactly
what
their
methodology
was,
but
that's
generally
my
understanding
of
how
they
modeled
it.
N
A
O
O
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I
would
like
to
voice
my
opposition
to
this
bill
and
it
stems
really
around
the
personal
exemption
phrase
working
in
schools,
and
I
I
have
some
agreement
with
the
previous
speaker
and
I,
but
I
don't
have
any
data,
it's
just
anecdotal.
O
O
I
have.
I
have
several
colleagues
in
colorado
who
speak
frequently
about
their
personal
exemption
and
the
low
rates
of
immunizations
that
they
have
in
their
state,
and
I
don't
think
that
we
want
to
go
down
that
road.
We
have
really
good
immunization
rates
and
good
compliance
with
those
required
immunizations
in
our
state.
The
previous
speaker
did
mention
varicella
and
maybe
a
question
about
why
that
one
is
lower
and
again
I
this
would
just
be
anecdotal.
O
I
don't
have
any
data
to
support
this,
but
the
varicella
requirement
did
not
go
into
effect
until
I
believe
2010
and
up
until
probably
somewhere
around
2015.
Maybe
even
2018
parents
could
opt
out
of
that
requirement
by
just
providing
a
statement
saying
that
their
child
had
had
the
disease.
There
was
no
confirmation
of
that
required.
O
I
do
agree
with
both
dr
kranz's
that
I
I
truly
believe
that
we
would
have
lower
vaccination
rates
across
the
state
if
there
was
the
option
for
that
personal
exemption,
and
I
feel
that,
although
I
know
that
there
are
people
out
there
who
would
use
the
personal
exemption
appropriately,
I
think
there
are
an
equal
number
of
people
that
would
use
it
as
a
means
of
convenience
to
just
not
get
the
vaccine.
O
O
L
A
P
Madam
chair
boyd
brown,
sheridan
county.
A
Mr
brown,
I'm
glad
to
see
you
looking
healthy
and
oops
he's
no
he's
not
frozen
up.
I
thought
your
picture
throws
up
for
the
moment
there.
So
sorry,
I
interrupted
your
introduction
of
yourself
go
ahead.
P
Not
a
problem
at
all,
madam
chair
boyd
brown.
I
live
in
sheridan
county
right
now,
just
wanted
to
voice
my
opinion
on
this
bill,
I'm
going
to
save
where
I'm
at
with
how
I
feel
about
the
bill
until
a
little
later,
probably,
but
I
do
believe,
especially
with
the
amount
of
interest
you
have
in
the
bill
that
it
might
be
better
served
to
go
through
a
regular
session
rather
than
a
special
session.
P
Again,
I
think
there's
some
confusion
about
this
bill
being
part
of
a
bill
to
keep
students
from
having
to
be
vaccinated
for
covet
19,
and
I
don't
believe,
that's
any
that's
not
mandated
at
the
state
or
national
level
at
this
time.
I
do
believe
that
we've
done
some
really
good
things
with
some
of
the
other
diseases
that
we've
been
able
to
cure
with
vaccinations.
So
I
think
it
would
be
beneficial
to
run
this
through
a
general
session
or
a
regular
session.
I
shouldn't
say
that,
because
I
believe
this
is
a
budget
session
coming
up.
P
I
know
that
you
guys
worked
on
this
as
a
committee
but
think
that
it's
kind
of
been
sprung
on
us
here
at
the
last
minute.
I
know
I
talked
to
some
other
folks
who
were
not
even
aware
that
it
was
going
to
be
out
this
afternoon,
so
I
just
think
it
would
be
better
to
have
a
little
more
time.
Allow
a
few
more
people
to
have
the
opportunity
to
weigh
in
on
this
subject
and
with
that
I'll,
take
questions.
P
A
A
A
Okay?
Well,
I
guess
actually
we
should
probably
do
yours
first,
because
then,
if
people
have
other
ones,
they'll
see
if
it
works
in
with
your
language
or
not,
okay,
so
representative
helen
in
he's
got
go
ahead
and
explain.
Would
you
want
to?
A
A
A
Do
we
need
a
10-minute
break
now
that
I
got
10
representative
helen
in
out
front?
How
are
we
doing
representative?
I
apologize
we're
going
to
take
a
10-minute
break
just
because
we've
been
here
for
a
long
time,
some
of
us
since
8
o'clock
this
morning
and
we
might
need
we
might
need
10
minutes,
so
donna
we're
gonna,
take
a
10-minute
break
and
let's
see
it's
4
22,
let's
be
back
at
4
30.,
okay,.
A
R
R
On
page
one
line,
one
after
safety
insert
specifying
liability
for
employers
whose
employees
suffer
damages
resulting
from
a
required
cova-19
vaccine,
specifying
limits
of
liability
line
8
after
specified,
insert
requiring
an
employer
to
grant
exemptions
for
any
cova
19
vaccine
mandate,
providing
for
damages
line,
1
or
page
1
line
9
after
definitions
insert
making
conforming
amendments
and
page
1
line
13.
It
has
various.
R
Sources
for
these
changes,
okay,.
A
R
Representative,
all
right,
1-1
142,
is
simply
a
matter
of
definitions,
except
on
section
b,
where
it
says
not
withstanding
and
subject
to
subsection
c
of
this.
Six
of
this
section,
an
employer
shall
be
liable
for
all
damages
for
injuries
caused
by
a
covert
19
vaccination
that
one
the
employer
required
or
mandated
the
employee
to
receive
as
a
condition
of
employment
and
two
the
employee
received
only
as
a
result
of
the
requirement
or
mandate
of
the
employer.
R
It
adds
before
religious
on
page
eight
of
the
bill
line,
17
medical
and
that
covers
medical
exempt
medical
contraindications
to
that's
listed
on
item
number
b
below
that
subject
to
the
provisions
of
a
subsection
b
of
this
section.
R
Section
c
shows
an
employer
will
be
shall
be
liable
in
a
civil
action
for
damages
of
five
thousand
dollars
or
actual
damages.
Whichever
is
greater
payable
to
the
employee,
if
the
employer
does
not
grant
an
exemption
in
violation
of
subsection
b
of
this
section
and
terminates
the
employee,
then
on
27-14
102
is
simply
a
matter
of
definitions
except
for
item
j,
where
it
says
an
injury,
an
injury
caused
by
a
covet,
19
vaccination
that
an
employee
receives
because
the
employer
required
or
mandated
the
employee
to
receive
the
cover.
R
R
This
is
talking
about
the
immunity,
that's
granted
in
current
law,
and
it
says
that,
except
as
provided
in
subsection
f
of
this
section
under
a
and
d
and
subsequent
subsection
f
says
the
immunity
from
liability
provided
in
subsection.
A
and
d
of
this
section
shall
not
apply
to
damages
claims
or
causes
of
action
under
the
ws
1-142
and
ws
2711,
three
131333
one
three
see
so
what
this
build?
What
this
amendment
does
just
just
to
summarize
it.
R
R
Those
would
be
those
would
be
five
thousand
dollars
or
actual
damages,
so
that
would
be
the
the
kicker
in
the
bill
that
would
or
the
amendment
that
would
require
that
the
employer
grant
the
exemption.
R
And,
finally,
the
part
about
the
immunity
from
liability
provided
in
subsection.
A
and
d
of
this
section
shall
not
apply
to
damage
claims,
famines,
claims
or
causes
of
of
action
under
ws
1-1-142,
so
they
would
have
exemptions
that
would
have
more
strength
because
they
are
backed
by
a
by
a
five
thousand
dollar
fine
and
the
damages
that
they
actually
suffered,
and
they
also
would
have
the
ability
to
sue
in
order
to
recover
the
money
that
they
lost
because
they
got
sick
related
to
the
shot.
So
that's
the
that's
the
amendment.
Okay,.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
representative,
helen.
I've
got
two
different
questions
for
you.
So
first
I
was
one
of
the
people
who
wanted
a
little
time
to
read
this
before
you
presented
it,
but
when
I
read
it,
I
think
I've
seen
it
before
so
was
this.
So
was
this
part
of
or
a
bill
that
was
on
the
legislative
website?
D
R
D
D
Okay,
I'm
not
sure
how
I'm
going
to
think
about
that
honestly
you're
taking
a
couple
bites
of
the
apple.
We
all
do
that
I
think
at
times,
but
but
the
reality
is.
This
is
also
being
looked
at
in
relation
to
the
the
minerals
bills
that
honestly
are
addressing
more
similar
items.
I
think
than
what
we
see
in
this
bill.
That's
just
that's
a
good
editorial
comment
there,
okay,
but
here's.
A
R
It
has
a
bill
that
I
think
that
the
that
the
sponsor
of
hospital
101
liked
the
bill,
but
he
wanted
more
in
it,
and
so
that's
why
he
did
he.
I
think
he's
tabled
that
bill.
So
this
bill
is
this
is
the
only
place
where
these
items
exist
other
than
what
gets
put
into
101.
D
You
ma'am
chair,
although
I
think
we
need
to
just
check
on
that
one,
because
I
hear
that
minerals
is
trying
to
combine
all
three
of
the
bills
that
they
had
into
one
of
them.
And
so
we
don't
know
you,
you
might
have
the
many
bites
at
the
apple
that
you
want.
Representative
palin,
whole
fruit,
salad
right
and
who
knows
what
really
is
going
on
there?
D
D
And
I'm
curious
about
that
because
it
is
my
understanding
and
luckily
we
have
our
two
doctors
still
here,
that
the
best
practices
right
now
is
that,
regardless,
if
you
have
had
covert
19,
you
should
get
vaccinated,
and
so
because
of
that,
I'm
curious
about
the
inclusion
of
that
or
when
best
medical
information.
Right
now,
best
medical
practices
say
that
vaccination
is
still
important
for
those
who
have
had
and
have
recovered
from
covid19
representative.
R
I
didn't
I
liked
that
bill
originally,
so
I
thought
that
was
important
to
preserve
that
bill
and
to
put
this
amendment
on
it
as
to
whether
the
previous
infection,
I
think
the
the
his
the
evidence,
is
that
it's
at
least
what
I've
seen
in
and
things
in
in
studies
that
I
have
seen
is
27
times
as
effective
as
the
vaccine.
R
R
Anything
other
than
that
to
say
on
that,
but
I
think
that
the
fact
that
it's
27
times
as
effective
as
the
vaccine
speaks
pretty
well
for
the
issue.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
and
dr
hallinan,
just
forgive
my
ignorance,
but
I'm
not
familiar
with
medical
contra,
contra
indication.
I
can
probably
figure
that
out,
but
I
wonder
if
you
could
define
that
for
me.
Please,
representative,
helen
in.
R
Various
medications
or
vaccines,
or
whatever
have
a
medical
contraindication
because
of
complications
that
would
result
if
they
got
that
medicine
or
that
vaccine.
So
there
are
things
that
are
actually
ruled
out
by
a
physician
right
generally
speaking,
they
would
be
ruled
out
for
the
use
of
that
for
that
treatment.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
and
thank
you
so
then,
just
for
instance
for
my
edification.
Then
if
I
have
a
child-
and
we
know
what's
in
the
polio
vaccine,
there
might
be
something
to
indicate
within
a
blood
test
with
my
child
that
that
would
contradict
with
that
vaccine.
Is
that
how
you
would
know
that,
and
so
then,
with
the
case
of
the
covid
vaccine,
do
we
know
what's
in
that
vaccine?
So
how
would
we
know
if
there
was
a
con?
I
mean
you
know
a
contraindication.
A
A
A
A
Is
there
any
way
a
medical
way
of
detecting
the
causation,
or
is
that
just
a
matter
of
court
decision
as
to
whether
they
think
the
stroke
was
a
result?
I
mean
clearly
there
are
some
things
you
know
like
we
had
the
bill
a
couple
of
years
ago
about,
I,
I
think,
was
lung
cancer
or
something
you
know
an
asbestos-related
type
thing
that
there
was
a
presumption
of
causation
if
you're
a
firefighter
okay,
I
mean
those
are,
but
those
are
legal
decisions.
So
is
that
what
you're
seeing
in
paragraph
jay.
R
I
think
so,
madam
chairman,
I
think
so
I
don't.
I
can't
say
what
the
courts
would
say
about
that.
I
think
the
the
amount
of
evidence
that
is
produced
by
the
experience
with
a
product
they
might
think
they
would.
You
know
it's
just
by
by
the
occurrence
of
something
many
times
with
people.
R
They
would
assume
that
that
may
be
the
cause
of
it,
and
I
think
courts
are
kind
of
they're
kind
of
liberal
on
understanding
that
I
think
sometimes
they
do
see
causation
even
where
it
may
not
be
causation,
but
that's
the
way
that
works.
That's
how
the
courts
work.
A
But
I
think
that
I
mean
we're
not
putting
any
presumptive
determination
in
this.
No,
you
know
I
mean
we're
not
saying
that
any
illness
that
anyone
that
ever
happens
to
anybody
within
two
months
after
a
vaccination
is
presumptively
caused,
so
that
would
okay.
I
was
just
trying
to
clarify
that.
Okay,
more
questions
for
representative
representative
martinez.
A
R
I
think
that,
madam
chairman,
I
think
that
representative
martinez,
that
I
think
that
the
federal
courts,
the
federal
courts
have
have
interpreted
that
very
broadly,
and
they
have
have
even
assumed
that
that
can
be
a
firmly
held
belief,
firmly
held
religious
belief.
R
A
A
Okay,
thank
you,
representative.
Do
I
hear
a
motion
on
the
amendment
move
by
stybar?
Is
there
a
second.
A
Second,
in
my
representative
good
glad
to
see
you
have
this
courage
of
your
convictions
there,
okay,
is
there
any
discussion
representative
atman.
E
Madam
chairman,
I
hope
this
is
in
line,
but
what
I'm
wondering
is
with
the
with
the
intent
of
the
bill.
Does
this
amendment
complement
it.
A
I
mean
I
personally
and
I'm
we
have
just
it's
just
kathy
representative
connolly
and
either
in
the
rules
committee.
It
does
seem
to
me
that,
because
we're
talking
about
condition
of
employment
that
it
would
fit,
but
I
mean
that's
a
fair
enough
question
representative
connolly,
yeah.
D
Madam
chair,
I
wondered
the
same
thing
representative
and
always
what
worries
me
is
that
when
you
see,
for
example,
on
section
one
so
on
page
one
line,
thirteen
of
the
bill
that
we
are
now
changing
that
to
add
in
one
one
one:
four,
two
and
thirty,
five,
four
one,
forty
as
well
as
changing
the
enacting
cost
to
me.
It's
saying
that
we
are
actually
doing
something
new
and
what
the
bill
is
doing
itself
and.
A
E
For
follow-up,
adam
chairman,
yes,
follow
up,
please
if-
and
this
is
just
clarification
if,
if
it
is
to
to
add
more
meat
to
the
bill,
that
would
be
good
if
it,
if
it's
to
create
a
civil
chaos,
then
that
is
this
clear
enough
in
in
this
amendment,
to
make
it
so
that
these
are
because
I'm
looking
at
it,
but
I'm
not,
I
don't
know
where
it
could
go
to
make
it
clear
enough
to
is
this-
would
be
the
repercussions
of
doing
these
actions
or
that
it
would
be
caught
up
for
years
and
years
and
years
and
years.
A
A
A
An
amendment
to
the
amendment.
If
people
would
like
to
consider
this
on
page
3
line,
8
teen,
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
the
open-endedness
of
the
phrase
of
actual
damages.
Whichever
is
greater
so
my
amendment
would
be
at
the
beginning
of
line
18
to
delete
of
and
put
no
more
than
and
then
delete
the
words
or
actual
damages.
Whichever
is
greater
comma
and
my
th
I'll,
explain
that
if
I
have
a
second.
A
A
It
seems
ex
very
open-ended,
and
I
I
find
that
a
little
bit
problematic.
I
mean
if
a
person
claimed
and
said
because
you
made
me
take
this
vaccine,
I
got
sick.
I
got
I
had
to
stay
home.
My
wife
quit
her
job
to
take
care
of
me,
and
now
I
lost
my
house.
I
mean
it
like.
It
just
seems
too
vague
to
me,
but
that's
that's
just
me.
Maybe
so
is
there
any
discussion
of
that?
A
D
D
Madam
chair
representative
conley,
thank
you
madam
chair
representative
hallinan.
I
it
was
able
to
very
quickly
pull
up
the
article
that
you
were
talking
about
in
science
magazine
that
talked
about
the
israeli
study
and
what
they
found
that
having
the
vaccine
was
having
covid
was
effective
as
the
vaccine,
but
then
there
was
an
addendum
at
the
end
of
it
saying
basically
an
oops
a
with.
Actually
they
didn't
call
it
an
oops.
D
A
All
in
favor
of
representative
connolly's
amendment
to
delete
the
previous
vex,
the
previous
infection
part.
Please
raise
your
hand
if
you're
in
favor
of
it
one
two:
okay
that
doesn't
pass
any
other
any
other
discussion,
representative
martinez,.
F
A
Of
course,
a
person
could
have
a
religious
objection
from
a
lot
of
other
places.
Sure
thank
you,
ma'am,
okay,
okay,
any
final
changes
to
this
before
we
vote
on
it.
A
Okay,
so
because
this
is
just
the
amendment,
we
can
we'll
just
go
with
hands
all
in
favor
of
representative
hallinan's
amendment.
Please
raise
your
hand.
A
D
D
I
was
able
to
pull
up
colorado.
You
had
mentioned
colorado
and
the
great
google
environment
of
pulling
up
colorado
colorado
is,
which
has
the
ability
to
have
a
personal
exemption,
is
very
seriously
taking
a
look
at
needing
tightening
it
and
with
the
understanding
that
they
need
to
tighten
it,
and
so
there's
some
of
the
data.
That's
coming
out
of
colorado,
the
state
right
to
the
south
of
us
that
they
found
that
they
have
90
more
cases
of
whooping
cough
than
states
with
more
stringent
requirements.
D
That,
to
me
is,
is
a
shocking
number
and
then,
when
I
went
down
it's
like
how
much
are
we
talking
about
and
it's
only
schools
with
exemption
rates
as
low
as
two
to
four
percent?
Two
to
four
percent
of
vaccine
exemptions
are
finding
that
they
no
longer
have
that
hurting
immunity
and
they
have
a
greater
risk
of
outbreaks.
D
D
So
it
is
so
if
we
thought
that
there
would
be
more,
but
it
wouldn't
be
that
many,
the
reality
is
what
they
have
found
in
colorado
and
in
other
states,
is
that
they
are
reducing
their
hurt
immunity
so
that
there
are
outbreaks
and
those
outbreaks
are
serious
and
I
am
of
a
generation
where
there
weren't
all
the
vaccines
right.
I'm
of
the
generation
where
there
was
still
polio.
I
have
friends
who
had
polio
right.
I
remembered
I
told
this
story
when
I
was
about
five
or
six.
D
D
How
are
they
going
to
get
me
to
a
doctor
because
of
the
incredible
concern
that
I
had
polio
and
what
what
would
need
to
happen
if
that
was
the
case,
I
remember
standing
in
line
to
get
the
little
sugar
cube
under
my
under
my
tongue,
and
I
also
remember
that
my
youngest
brother
was
before
the
rubella
vaccine
was
available
and,
and
he
got
german
measles
and
the
concern
was
that
he
was
going,
but
he
would
go
blind.
It
was
so
bad.
D
I
am
so
incredibly
grateful
and
I
don't
want
that
to
happen
to
any
other
generation
to
any
other
generation
and
that
allowing
for
kind
of
personal
exemptions
right
is,
could
cause
that
problem.
Our
obligation
is
to
do
the
hard
work
it's
easy
to
just
put
in.
I
think
it's
easy
honestly
to
include
personal
in
here.
I
think
it's
a
whole
lot
harder
to
go
home
and
say
no.
We
didn't
do
that
because
we
are
obligated
to
care
for
our
kids.
D
That's
the
harder
thing
to
do,
and
so
we
have
evidence
that
vaccines
work.
We
have
evidence
that
if
we
include
a
personal
exemption
that
the
likelihood
of
infection
the
likelihood
of
disease
is
going
to
happen,
and
so
I
would
strongly
encourage
us
to
do
the
hard
work
and
strike
personal
in
those
two
places.
A
B
Chairman,
thank
you,
and
I
I
agree
with
you.
I
am
a
child
of
the
60s
as
well,
and
I
guess
maybe
it
was
because
I
stood
in
line
along
with
everybody
else
at
lynch
elementary
school
and
took
my
shot
in
the
arm.
B
I,
I
am
a
mother
who
believed
in
vaccines,
so
I
worry
too
about
that
insertion
of
that
language
and
what
it
could
do
and
the
harm
that
it
could
do
within
our
public
school
system
and
our
society
as
a
whole.
My
I
understand,
though,
the
concern
about
requiring
parents
to
subject
a
child
to
a
vaccine.
That
is
unapproved,
and
I
believe
that
that
is
my.
You
know.
B
That
is
the
great
concern
too,
with
most
people
is
that
we're
dealing
with
approved
vaccines
within
our
school
system
like
polio
or
mmr,
as
opposed
to
an
and
you
know,
a
vaccine,
the
covet
vaccine,
which
has
not
yet
been
approved,
but
I
do
agree
with
the
bringer
of
the
amendment
and
I
will
be
voting.
I.
A
More
discussion,
I'm
just
going
to
ask
the
committee's
thoughts
on
this.
A
I'm
thinking
of
offering-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
a
friendly
amendment
or
not-
but
to
divide
it,
because
there
are
two
separate
things
at
issue
here:
six
it
is
dealing
with
pediatric,
k-12
immunizations
and
on
page
eight
it
is
dealing
with
an
employer
required
which
is
an
adult
who
has
had.
A
D
A
Okay,
then
I'm
if
I'm
going
to
divide
the
amendment
just
in
case
there,
it
processes
differently
for
people,
because
I
feel
like
you
know
they
are
separate
issues
I
mean,
I
understand
you
perfectly
within
your
rights
to
bring
them
both
at
the
same
time,
but
so,
let's
so
we'll
vote
first,
I
think
unless
there's
any
further
discussion.
A
L
G
A
Remember,
no
clapping!
Sorry!
Sorry,
I
understand,
but
that's
you
have
to
think
in
your
head.
Okay.
So
the
first
part
that
we
will
vote
on
is
on
just
making
sure
I'm
the
right
part
page
six
line
eleven
to
strike,
let's
see
to
strike
the
the
changes,
so
it
would
go
back
to
religious
objection.
A
A
Then,
on
page
8
line
18,
all
those
in
favor
of
striking
or
personal.
Please
raise
your
hand
one
two,
three
okay,
so
that
fails.
A
D
A
D
Madam
chair,
just
briefly
again,
I've
been
convinced
by
the
medical
experts
that
there
has
been
enough
vetting
through
the
variety
of
of
medical
entities
in
terms
of
assuring
the
safety
of
vaccines
that
this
five-year
period
was
a
you
said
it
yourself,
you
kind
of
made
it
up,
you
pulled
it
out
of
your
pocket
and
that
it
is
an
unnecessary
delay
in
getting
the
kind
of
immunizations
that
are
necessary
for
our
kids.
A
E
Yes,
well
kind
of
a
comment
on
this
is
going
back
working
in
the
school
district,
it
was
procedure
for
employees
and
children
alike.
Is
that
if
you
had
a
cold
and
you
went
to
the
doctor,
they
could
prescribe
this
or
this
or
this.
If
you
had
a
virus,
you
were
sent
home
because
there
there
wasn't
anything.
E
What
what
I'm
trying
to
go
back
to
with
comments
that
I
make
is
that
if
a
person
sees
the
medical
professionals
that
they
are
agreeing
with
and
looking
to
for
guidance,
if
they
see
that
yay
get
an
inoculation,
do
whatever
it
is
that
you
want
to
do.
But
if
I
have
reservations
and
the
data
that
I
happen
to
see
or
get
a
hold
of,
or
the
people
that
have
witnessed
to
me
or
the
things
that
I've
seen
disagree
with
that,
then
I
should
have
that
option.
Also
they're.
E
There
are
lots
of
reasons
not
to
mandate.
People
would
not
say
I'm
not
getting
a
vaccination
for
my
child
so
that
they
would
die.
E
This
is
something
I
believe
we
should
have
liberty
on,
and
especially
if
we
want
to
do
the
five
years,
which
at
least
that
would
give
it
time
we
do
not.
We
do
not
have
all
of
the
information
all
of
the
data
collected.
It
is
still
from
one
side
of
the
country
to
the
other,
to
different
households,
to
different
age
groups,
to
all
kinds
of
different
situations,
whether
they
be
elderly
in
nursing
homes,
whether
they
be
individuals
at
home.
A
Okay,
then
I'll
just
take
first
row
of
hands
all
those
in
favor
of
the
amendment
to
remove
paragraph
four
about
the
five
year
waiting
period
before
putting
k-12
vaccines
on
the
school
list.
So
if
you're
in
favor
of
deleting
that
paragraph,
please
raise
your
hand.
One
two
posed
one,
two,
three,
four:
okay,
five
all
right,
so
that
fails
any
more
all
right,
no
further
amendments
being
heard
donna.
Would
you
call
the
vote?
Please.
A
Okay,
so
that's
the
end
of
our
work
for
today
committee.
We,
I
don't
really
know
what
we'll
get
down
the
hall
from
the
senate
in
a
few
days.
We
shall
await
events
and
see.
Thank
you
audience.
I
do
want
to
say
kudos
to
the
folks
in
the
audience.
I
know
this
is
a
very
contentious
issue.
We've
certainly
deal
with
contentious
issues
in
this
committee.
A
You
know:
we've
had
pro-life
related
issues,
abortion
related
issues,
we've
had
death
penalty
issues,
and
I
I
hate
to
put
this
in
that
this,
but
I
think
you
know
just
being
able
to
have
civil
discussion.
Whatever
is
going
on
in
the
inside
of
your
head
is
a
win.
So
thank
you
all
for
that
and
remember
the
process
continues
forward.
We
will
continue
on.
A
There
will
be
committee
of
the
whole
potential
for
amendments
there,
third
ring
and
amendments,
and
then
because
we
didn't
accept
the
the
rules
for
the
special
session,
then
it
will
go
down
the
hall
and
you
will
be
heard
again
in
the
senate.
So
there
will
be
opportunity
for
testimony
as
well
in
the
senate,
which
I
don't
know
what
the
schedule
for
that
is,
but
that
will
be
available
as
well.
So
thanks
for
all
being
here
and
have
a
great
week.